Heavenly Sabbath, Heavenly Sanctuary: The Transformation of Priestly Sacred Space

and Sacred Time in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews

Jared C. Calaway

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirement for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
2010
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 2010

Jared C. Calaway
All Rights Reserved
 ABSTRACT  

Heavenly  Sabbath,  Heavenly  Sanctuary:    The  Transformation  of  Priestly  Sacred  

Space  and  Sacred  Time  in  the  Songs  of  the  Sabbath  Sacrifice  and  the  Epistle  to  the  

Hebrews  

Jared  C.  Calaway  

  This  dissertation  investigates  how  the  Sabbath  and  the  sanctuary  interrelate  

in  Second  Temple  Jewish  and  early  Christian  literature.    Studies  of  sacred  time  and  

sacred  space  have  generally  treated  them  as  separate  yet  complementary  categories  

in  the  study  of  religion.    This  has  been  equally  true  of  those  studying  the  Sabbath  

and  the  sanctuary  in  Second  Temple  Jewish  and  early  Christian  literature.    

Considerations  of  their  coordination  have  tended  to  be  rare  momentary  glimpses  

rather  than  extended  treatments.    This  study  focuses  on  the  coordination  of  sacred  

time  of  the  Sabbath  and  sacred  space  of  the  sanctuary  through  how  they  come  

together  in  narratives,  ritual  practices,  and  shifting  historical  circumstances.  

  The  body  of  this  dissertation  consists  of  three  major  parts  divided  into  the  

Hebrew  Bible,  the  Songs  of  the  Sabbath  Sacrifice  from  Qumran,  and  the  Epistle  to  

the  Hebrews.    Beginning  with  and  strongly  relying  upon  the  Hebrew  Bible,  these  

sources  align  the  Sabbath  and  the  sanctuary  by  making  them  equivalent  in  holiness  

and  by  embedding  this  relationship  within  an  ancient  Near  Easter  narrative  pattern  

exemplified  by  the  Babylonian  Enuma  Elish  in  which  a  god  creates,  is  enthroned,  

receives  a  temple,  and  rests.    The  Songs  and  Hebrews  similarly  reflect  upon  and  

transform  this  relationship  within  this  narrative  pattern  by  resituating  it  on  a  

heavenly  plane.    Their  similarities  indicate  a  likely  connection  between  them.    For  
the  Songs,  the  Sabbath  becomes  the  temporal  access  to  the  heavenly  Tabernacle;  for  

Hebrews,  the  Sabbath  and  the  sanctuary  become  equivalent  expressions  to  enter  

heavenly  life.    In  both,  this  spatiotemporal  coordination  allowed  one  presently  to  

enter  the  heavenly  realm  and  approach  the  enthroned  God  of  creation.  

These  works  inaugurated,  maintained,  and  reconfigured  this  relationship  in  

periods  when  the  sanctuary  was  inaccessible.    The  earliest  articulations  occurred  

during  and  after  the  Babylonian  exile,  the  Dead  Sea  sectarians  used  the  Songs  when  

separated  from  the  temple,  and  Hebrews  likely  was  written  after  the  destruction  of  

the  second  temple.    By  bringing  the  Sabbath  together  with  the  sanctuary,  these  

works  made  the  Sabbath  the  temporal  access  to  the  sanctuary’s  spatial  holiness  and  

heavenliness  when  it  was  otherwise  unobtainable.    Those  within  the  covenant  could  

experience  the  sanctuary’s  holiness  every  seventh  day  and,  thereby,  God’s  holy  and  

heavenly  presence.  

 
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents………………………………………………...…………….…………i

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................vii

Dedication...........................................................................................................................x

Chapter 1: Introduction: Investigating the Intersections of the Sabbath and the

Sanctuary: Toward a Spatiotemporal Poetics…..…………………….……….1

Contemporary Research: Sabbath or Sanctuary, but Rarely Both……………...5

Research on the Sabbath…………………………….…………………………...6

Research on Sanctuaries: Earthly, Heavenly, and Ideal……………………….7

Preliminary Steps toward a Discussion of the Intersection of Sacred Space and

Sacred Time……………………………………………………………...20

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….24

Space-Time as an Interdisciplinary Lens…………………………………………25

Space and Time as Separate, but Complementary: The Kantian Inheritance..26

Subordinating Time to Space, Time Superseding Space……………………….39

The Most Holy Chronotope: Mythic Narrative Patterns………………………45

The Ritual Event: Coordinating and Exposing Holy Space-Time…………….51

Excursus: Restorative Versus Liminal Space-Time……………………………..60

The Plan of this Study……………………………………………………………...64

i  
 
Introduction to Part 1: The Priestly Foundations of the Sanctuary/Sabbath

Correlation............................................................................................................70

Chapter 2: Sabbath and Temple Construction: The Ancient Near Eastern

Nexus…………………………………………………………………………..77

Emulating and Transforming the Ancient Near Eastern Pattern…………...78

Transforming Tradition within the Narrative Pattern……………………….90

The Divinely Revealed Temple in Ezekiel and Exodus………………………97

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………105

Chapter 3: The Sabbath and the Sanctuary as Qualitatively Equivalent in

Holiness………………………………………………………………………107

The Conjoined Veneration and Profanation of the Sabbath and the

Sanctuary………………………………………………………………....108

The Punishments for Profanation: ‫כרת‬, Death, and Exile………………..118

Sabbath Observance and Cultic Inclusion in Trito-Isaiah…………………...123

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...128

Chapter 4: Extensions and Corollaries to the Sabbath/Sanctuary Equivalence:

The Land’s Sabbath and the Day of Atonement………………….……….131

Impurity and Purgation: The Sanctuary and the Land……………………...132

The Day of Atonement: The Holy of Holies Meets the Sabbath of Sabbaths.139

The Day of Atonement in Festival Lists (Numbers 28-9 and Leviticus 23)...140

The Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16……………………………………...145

Chapter 5: Imitating Divine Holiness through the Sabbath and the Sanctuary150

ii  
 
 Conclusion to Part 1: The Priestly Holiness Gradient of Space, Time, and

Person………………………………………………………………………...161

Exile as the Historical Context of the Holiness School……………………….163

The Holiness Gradient…………………………………………………………164

Introduction to Part 2: From Holy to Heavenly Space-Time: The Songs of the

Sabbath Sacrifice and the Refocusing of Moses’ Vision into the Heavenly

Tabernacle………………………………………………………..……………167

Chapter 6: Placing the Songs: Their Historical, Liturgical, and Conceptual

Context………………………………………………………………..……171

Were the Songs Sectarian? Their Immediate Context………………….……172

Shifting to Heavenly Space and Time…………………………………………181

The Heavenly Orientation in Second Temple Literature…………………...182

The Heavenly Orientation in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice…………..185

Exhorting Angels to Praise on the Sabbath: The Heavenly Liturgical

Tradition………………………………………………………………..188

Angelic and Heavenly Praise in Pre-Sectarian Works……………………..189

Conjoined Worship in Qumran Literature: The Songs and the Hodayot….194

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...198

Chapter 7: From Creation to Revelation: The Ritual Alignment of Sacred Time

and Heavenly Space……………………………………………………….200

From Creation to Revelation in Jubilees and the Songs……………………...200

The Sabbath of the Creation of the Cosmos and the Tabernacle…………..202

iii  
 
 The Revelation Sabbaths of Shavuot: Ritually Aligning Moses’ and Ezekiel’s

Visions………………………………………………………………204

The Sabbath Liturgy as the Ritual Temporal Access to the Heavenly

Sanctuary…………………………………………………………...205

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...207

Chapter 8: The Heavenly Tabernacle, Its ‫תבנית‬, and Its Throne-Chariot..208

Songs 7: The ‫ תבנית‬and ‫ מבנית‬and the Tabernacle……………………….211

Song 10: The Tabernacle’s Veil (‫)פרוכת‬: The Boundary of the Most Holy…225

Song 12: The Tabernacle and the Tavnit of the Throne-Chariot…………...232

Song 13: The Heavenly Sacrifice and the Heavenly High Priestly

Vestments……………………………………………………………….245

Sacrifice in the Heavenly Holy of Holies…………………………………...246

The Heavenly High Priestly Garments and God’s Glory…………………..251

Conclusion to Part 2: The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice……………………..262

Introduction to Part 3: The Patterns of Priestly Space and Time of the Heavenly

Homeland in the Epistle to the Hebrews……………………………………..267

The Historical Context of Hebrews………………..…………………………..273

Chapter 9: Creation, Perfecting Purification, and Destruction……………….280

Creator, Sustainer, Destroyer………………………………………………….281

Originator and Completer: The Ritual Event of the Heavenly Day of

Atonement……………………………………………………………...294

Originator and Completer: Purifier, Sanctifier, and Perfected Perfecter…295

The Merciful and Faithful High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek……300

iv  
 
 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...315

Chapter 10: The Enthronement of the Son……………………………………..316

Enthronement in Second Temple Literature………………………………….317

Enthronement in Hebrews and the New Testament…………………………..320

Accessing the Throne…………………………………………………………..324

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...327

Chapter 11: Sabbath Rest and the Heavenly Homeland……………………….329

The Faithless and the Faithful………………………………………………...333

The Promise Still Remains “Today”…………………………………………..343

From Space to Time: The Rest as the Sabbath……………………………….348

Κατἀπαυσις in Greek Biblical Literature…………………………………...348

The Spatiotemporal Facets of κατάπαυσις in Hebrews……………………..353

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...362

Chapter 12: God’s House, the Sanctuary, and the Tent……………………….364

The Multivalent House………………………………………………………...366

The True Heavenly Tent and Its Copies………………………………………374

The Two Tents: The Space-Time of the Tabernacle…………………………382

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..393

Excursus: Exhortations of Heavenly Priestly Service……………………….394

Conclusion to Part 3: The Epistle to the Hebrews……………………………..399

Conclusion: Reflections and Trajectories…………………………………………..405

Configuring the Intersections of Sacred Space and Sacred Time……………….405

Supporting Themes………………………………………………………………..413

v  
 
 The “Pattern” Moses Saw: A New History of Interpretation…………………414

Imitation: God, Angels, and Christ……………………………………………418

Social Circumstances……………………………………………………………...423

Relationship between Works………………………………………………………429

Trajectories for Future Research………………………………………………....437

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………..441

vi  
 
 Acknowledgments

Many people have made this project possible through verbal and written

exchanges as well as financial support. Many more people have contributed to my

development as a scholar. Even if they did not directly give feedback on this project,

their impact can nonetheless be felt.

I have discussed my work with many people on several different occasions.

Among those I would like to highlight and thank my fellow graduate students at

Columbia University, Adam Gregerman and Asha Moorthy. I would also like to thank

the Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism Section at the Society of Biblical Literature for

giving me a forum to present some of my work during the 2008 meeting in Boston and to

those attending that session who responded to my paper.

I would also like to thank in particular April DeConick, who was my mentor as an

undergraduate at Illinois Wesleyan University. She has been an endless source of support

through the past decade and continues to be so. I would like further to thank her for

reading the entire antepenultimate draft of this dissertation and her helpful comments.

The five examiners who formed my dissertation defense committee have all been

of great assistance for much more than the final product of the dissertation itself. Gareth

Williams from the Classics Department at Columbia has been a role model for what it

means to be a good teacher. I further want to thank him for his thorough reading, helpful

comments, and astute criticisms on my dissertation. Although he insisted that he was out

of his depth on this project, he navigated the material most ably.

vii  
 
 Robert Somerville of the Religion and History Departments at Columbia has been

a source of support ever since I was his teaching assistant. I want to thank him for his

epigrammatic comments, critiques, and helpful suggestions of where this material goes in

medieval Christianity. I further want to thank him for agreeing to serve as the chair for

my dissertation defense, a position in which he served ably, making the experience of

defending a smooth process.

David Carr has been offering helpful critical feedback on my work since my first

year of graduate school. He has seen this project at the beginning and the end, being

there at the proposal stage and at the defense. He also graciously read the penultimate

draft of part 1 of this project, and saved me from many mistakes while offering me new

possibilities and scholarly readings. For this ongoing involvement in my research and

support of my Hebrew Bible work I am most grateful.

Both Celia Deutsch and Alan Segal, my second reader and dissertation sponsor

respectively, have been involved throughout this project. They both have read every

draft of every chapter for the past three years. I cannot thank them enough for the sheer

amount of reading and effort they have expended on my behalf. I would like to thank

Celia Deutsch for her detailed feedback that saved me from many conceptual, factual,

and grammatical errors. I would especially like to thank my doctoral advisor, Alan

Segal. I went to Columbia University to study with him, and I have reaped great

intellectual rewards as a result. He skillfully knew when to push me in a new direction,

and when to let me follow my own intellectual curiosity. Whether through written

exchanges, in-class discussions, feedback on my research, informal discussions, working

viii  
 
as his teaching assistant, or just advice on life in general, his impact cannot be fully

measured.

I would also like to thank the Religion Department of Columbia University for

awarding me a Dissertation Writing Fellowship for 2007-2008, and the Office for the

Core Curriculum at Columbia University for funding me during the academic years of

2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Without their financial support, this project would not have

been possible.

I finally would like to thank my family. My grandmother, Gertrude Anne

Wallace, my sister and brother-in-law, Jaynanne and Ron Calaway-Habeck, and my

parents, A. Gerald and R. Jane Calaway, have been sources of love and emotional

support. My niece, Rebekah Jean Calaway-Habeck was born toward the end of this

project and has been a new source of joy in the family. Finally, I met my wife, Stacy

Camacho, just after I proposed this project and married her just after I defended it. I want

to thank her for her love, patience, understanding, and for the joy that she brings to my

life. She has reminded me how to rest, and for that I am forever grateful. Finally, I want

to thank my paternal grandmother, Ethel Corinne Calaway, and my maternal grandfather,

Kenneth Cannon Wallace, who did not live to see me go to graduate school, but who

would have been interested in this project. Their memory and their interest in the Bible

and traveling have been sources of inspiration for me. It is to their memory that I

dedicate this work.

All of these people and more have improved this project through their intellectual,

financial, and emotional support. The errata that remain are, of course, of my own

making. For everything else, "what I have written, I have written."

ix  
 
 Dedicated in memory of

Ethel Corinne Calaway

and

Kenneth Cannon Wallace

who have entered their Sabbath rest.

x  
 
 1

Introduction: Investigating the Intersections of the Sabbath and the Sanctuary:

Toward a Spatiotemporal Poetics

How do sacred space and sacred time relate to one another? How is that

relationship substantively and formally expressed? What does it rely upon, and what are

its implications? This study will investigate these questions by focusing on the

development and transformations of the relationship between the Sabbath and the

sanctuary in the ancient Jewish and early Christian documents of the Songs of the

Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Both of these works, in turn,

appropriate and develop the spatiotemporal relationships formulated in the Hebrew Bible,

particularly Ezekiel and the Priestly strata of the Pentateuch.

In ancient Jewish priestly writings, the Sabbath became a sanctuary in time; the

sanctuary, a Sabbath in space.1 They became equivalent in holiness as the dual

expressions of God’s holiness in space and time. While the greatest holiness of the

sanctuary—the holy of holies—could only be experienced by the high priest once a year

on the Day of Atonement, a day which is called a Sabbath in the priestly tradition,

1
The first statement of a “sanctuary in time” is a take on the expression by Abraham Joshua Heschel (The
Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005)) of the Sabbath as a
“palace in time.” The second statement of a sabbath in space, which may make less sense in a post-temple
situation, complements the first and relies upon as an equivalent insight of the ancient Priestly writers, who
adapted traditions of sanctuary as a place of rest and transformed that rest into the sabbath. The Hebrew
word for “palace,” hekhal, also means “temple.” This Hebrew word derives from the Akkadian word,
êkallu, which in turn has Sumerian origins in the word ê-gal, which simply means “big house.” This
designation further parallels the most common language surrounding the temple in the Hebrew Bible,
which is bêt Yahweh or “house of Yahweh”; see Menahem Haran, "Temple and Community in Ancient
Israel," Temple in Society, ed. Michael V. Fox (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1988) 17-18; idem., Temples
and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985) 13-15, 26-42.
 2

equating the holiness of the Sabbath with that of the sanctuary made the spatial holiness

of the sanctuary temporally accessible every seventh day by anyone within the covenant.

The sanctuary and the Sabbath were the dual, interrelated, and interacting expressions of

God’s holiness in space and time respectively. While they had become equivalent in

holiness, they were not substitutive, but pointed toward one another, participated in each

other’s holiness, and pointed toward and participated in God’s holiness.

This relationship relies upon and is embedded within a broader ancient Near

Eastern narrative pattern best exemplified in the Babylonian Enuma Elish of creation,

sanctuary, enthronement, and rest. The Jewish priestly tradents appropriated this pattern,

but substituted the temple rest with the Sabbath, creating new dynamic spatiotemporal

interrelationships of holiness. The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the

Hebrews relied upon these earlier articulations to reconfigure the intersection of the

Sabbath and the sanctuary in the heavenly realm, making the Sabbath the temporal access

to the heavenly sanctuary and equivalent expressions of God’s heavenliness. This

intersection of Sabbath and the Sanctuary made them the fullest expressions of God’s

holiness in time and space, and, thereby, the primary spatial and temporal indicators of

God’s holy and subsequently heavenly presence.

This relationship begins in the Hebrew Bible. Hebrew Bible scholars have long

recognized the literary relationship between the Priestly (P) account of creation (Gen.

1:1-2:3), the instructions for building the Tabernacle, and the building of the Tabernacle

(Ex. 24:12-31:12-17, 39:1-40:33). Both the creation and the instructions culminate in the

Sabbath and the building begins in the Sabbath, while the closing chapter of Exodus

repeats the step-by-step structure found in Gen. 1:1-2:3. In this literary relationship, both
 3

the building of the Tabernacle and the Sabbath parallel and imitate God’s building of the

cosmos and subsequent resting, partaking in a larger ancient Near Eastern nexus of

creation, enthronement, sabbath/rest, and temple/Tabernacle building.2 Parts of this

ancient Near Eastern cosmogonic pattern were variously incorporated in the Hebrew

Bible, such as in the combat myth of God overcoming primordial chaos represented by a

serpentine water creature (Pss. 65:7, 74:14, 77:17-20, 89:9-10, 114:1-8; Job 41; Rev.

12:1-17, 20:1-10) and bringing together “rest” and the sanctuary (Ps. 132). In this more

complete thread, however, “rest” becomes the “Sabbath,” bringing the sacred time of the

Sabbath and the sacred space of the sanctuary together, creating a heightened

spatiotemporal interplay of God’s holiness not found in the other configurations of this

mythic pattern. Moreover, in Ezekiel and the Holiness School, the Sabbath and the

sanctuary become qualitatively equivalent in holiness (e.g., Lev. 19:30), or equivalent

expressions of God’s holiness in time and space, respectively.3

Otherwise, little attention has been paid to the ongoing morphology of the

Sabbath/sanctuary correlation; this is true particularly of scholarship on Second Temple

Judaism and early Christianity. Despite the dearth of attention, not only was this

correlation between Sabbath and Tabernacle initiated by Ezekiel and the Pentateuch

2
Moshe Weinfeld, "Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord--the Problem of the Sitz im Leben
of Genesis 1:1-2:3," Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, ed. A. Caquot and
M. Delcor (Verlag: Butzer & Bercker Kevalaer; Neukirchenen Vorlag: Neukirchen--Vluyn, 1981) 501-512;
Samuel Noah Kramer ("The Temple in Sumerian Literature," Temple in Society, ed. Michael V. Fox
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1988) 1-16) discusses the nexus of creation, rest, the seventh day for the
installation of the deity, and temple in terms of myths connected to specific Sumerian temples.
3
Jewish scholarship has discussed an ongoing trajectory between Sabbath and Temple/Tabernacle from the
Rabbinic use of the Exodus account to determine the thirty-nine types of labor forbidden on the Sabbath
based upon the types of labor needed to build the Tabernacle to their ongoing relationships in medieval
Kabbalah and Hasidic traditions. M. Shab. 11:2, 12:3; Tos. Shab. 11:6; B. Shab. 49b, 70a, 73b, 74a, 74b,
97b; Mekhilta Wa-yakhel 20; Pesikta Rabbati 6. Sidney B. Hoenig, "The Designated Number of Kinds of
Labor Prohibited on the Sabbath," JQR 68.4 (1978): 193-208; Arthur Green, "Sabbath as Temple: Some
Thoughts on Space and Time in Judaism," Go and Study (1980): 287-305.
 4

operative in Second Temple Jewish and early Christian sources, but these sources

rearticulated this relationship in a particular way. The late Second Temple sources of the

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews reflected upon,

appropriated, and reconfigured the relationship between the Sabbath and Tabernacle as

articulated by the Priestly writers by resituating it in the heavenly realm, reflecting a

major shift in the cosmology of the Second Temple period that saw the earthly temple as

a mirror, antitype, or shadow of the heavenly temple.

For the former, the Sabbath and the sanctuary were brought together liturgically—

the most holy time, the Sabbath, was the auspicious time to evoke the heavenly

sanctuary, participating in the heavenly liturgy with the angels, blurring the boundaries

between heaven and earth, angel and priest, and even heavenly architecture and living

beings. In the process, these Songs clearly invoke the Pentateuch’s Tabernacle, or, as

argued in Part 2, reenact Moses’ vision of the “pattern” of the Tabernacle through the

culminating visions of the “pattern” of Tabernacle (Song 7) and the “pattern” of God’s

Throne-Chariot (Song 12), the latter of which has an important liturgical connection with

Shavuot, commemorating Moses atop the mountain.

For Hebrews, Sabbath rest is aligned with the supernal realms of the “heavenly

homeland,” while also finding its place in the same ancient Near Eastern cosmogonic

scheme, reconfigured to emphasize Christ’s position as the enthroned Son in the heavenly

sanctuary:4 (re)creation, enthronement, Sabbath rest, (priesthood), sanctuary, and

heavenly orientation. For Hebrews, the Sabbath is a heavenly place to approach and

enter just as one approaches the throne and enters the sanctuary, blurring imagery of

4
See Kenneth L. Schenck, "A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1," JBL 120.3
(2001): 469-85.
 5

space and time into one another in the process, in which the Sabbath has spatial

characteristics (Hebrews 3-4) and the Tabernacle acquires temporal ones (Hebrews 9).

Together, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews are

the first works since Ezekiel and the Pentateuch to bring the Tabernacle and the Sabbath

back together in a significant way, making the Sabbath the temporal access to the

heavenly sanctuary and making them equivalent expressions of enduring heavenliness.

They are the first works to place the Tabernacle in the heavenly realm, and they both do

so by invoking the “pattern” Moses saw in Exodus—the scriptural site of the Priestly

Sabbath and Tabernacle correlation. As such, these two works play a key role in the

ongoing transmission of the intersections between God’s spatial and temporal holiness.

Contemporary Research: Sabbath or Sanctuary, but Rarely Both

There is plentiful research on either the Sabbath or the sanctuary for this period,

but excluding the Hebrew Bible and Jewish Studies scholarship already cited,5 there is

very little that discusses their interrelationship and how they fit into the larger ongoing

diachronic reconfigurations. In general, those who study the Sabbath make scant mention

of the temple, and those who study the temple, whether actual, ideal, or heavenly, make

little to no mention of the Sabbath except occasional musings about whether Psalm 92,

which is a “Song for the Sabbath Day,” was sung in the temple (see below).

5
This connection is missed by those who primarily study the description of Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings
6-7, while those who study the Tabernacle tend to make the connection. For a clear and succinct study on
Solomon’s temple and Edenic imagery, see E. M. Bloch-Smith, ""Who is the King of Glory?": Solomon's
Temple and its Symbolism," Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor
of Philip J. King, ed. M.D. Coogan, J.C. Exum and L.E. Stager (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press,
n.d.) 18-31.
 6

Research on the Sabbath

Scholarly works on the Sabbath are numerous, particularly when considering

investigations of a single text. Most general works on the Sabbath rarely mention the

temple. There are three general ways that researchers have approached the Sabbath more

broadly: pick a particular theme and trace how it emerges across several types of

literature, approach the various bodies of literature as particular units with minimal

attention to broader trends and themes, or focus on a single text.6

The first and third approaches together can be exemplified by Otfried Hofius’s

1970 monograph, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im

Hebräerbrief.7 This study marshals evidence from a wide variety of sources, particularly

those that depict an eschatological rest or Sabbath to paint a background for the concept

in Hebrews 3-4, based upon the terminology of katapausis that appears in Gen. 2:2 and

invoked in Hebrews 3-4. In his focus on eschatological rest, he does not indicate any

relationship with the temple, even though such a connection exists in the P source that he

analyzes and an aspect of Hebrews, his primary text under investigation.

Heather A. McKay’s Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship

in Ancient Judaism,8 tackles the day-to-day practicalities of Sabbath worship in a

synagogue setting. In a work interested in the relationship between Sabbath worship and

the synagogue, it is odd not to find references to Sabbath worship and the temple, yet her

6
For a combination of approaches across different literatures, see the collected papers in Tamara C.
Eskanazi, Daniel J. Harrington and William Shea, eds., The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Traditions
(New York: Crossroad, 1991).
7
Otfried Hofius, Katapausis. Die Vorstellung vom Endzeit. Ruheort in Hebräerbrief (Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 11; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1970).
8
Heather A. McKay, Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994).
 7

more descriptive approach may have precluded a discussion of the symbolic relations of

Sabbath and sanctuary in narrative and ritual.

The only representative of the second approach is Herold Weiss’s A Day of

Gladness.9 While he primarily exegetes New Testament texts and his analysis of Second

Temple Jewish texts is minimal, he surveys nearly all of the relevant materials. He

studies each body of literature in isolation, making little effort to make connections or to

draw out the various trajectories of traditions and ideas correlated with the Sabbath in

ancient Judaism and Christianity, leaving the work with little coherence. He nevertheless

tackles some difficult exegetical problems in many texts.10

Research on Sanctuaries: Earthly, Heavenly, and Ideal

Although Sabbath scholarship is voluminous, analyses on the Tabernacle and/or

the temple in Judaism are even more so. I have, therefore, selected the most important,

representative, relevant, and recent treatments, yet they similarly invoke the temple

without any connections to the Sabbath except for an occasional reference to the Psalm

92, which may have been sung in the temple on the Sabbath. These treatments often

prefer descriptive modes, in which any secondary reflections tend to be supersessionist in

9
Herold Weiss, A Day of Gladness: The Sabbath among Jews and Christians in Antiquity (Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press, 2003).
10
In addition to Weiss’s various articles on particular texts, there have also been many specific monographs
on the sabbath in a particular document, usually among New Testament scholars, or in a particular corpus
of literature, usually in the entire Tanakh, but, as such, I will leave discussion of such literature to the
pertinent sections of the dissertation. See, for example, Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, The Old Testament
Sabbath (SBL Dissertation Series 7; Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972); Gnana Robinson, The
Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach
(Bangalore: UTC, 1998); Yong-Eui Yang, Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew's Gospel (JSNTSS 139;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); Martin Asiedu-Peprah, Johannine Sabbath Conflicts as
Juridical Controversy (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 132; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2001).
 8

perspective. When they do reflect upon symbolic interrelationships, they focus on cosmic

or Edenic symbolism, especially in the descriptions of Solomon’s temple.11

For example, Alfred Edersheim’s 1874 book, The Temple: Its Ministry and

Services as They Were at the Time of Jesus Christ, details the daily, weekly, monthly,

and yearly operations of the temple, from an explicitly Christian perspective.12 The goal

of the book is “to take the reader back nineteen centuries; to show him Jerusalem as it

was when our Lord passed through its streets, and the sanctuary, where He taught in its

porches and courts; to portray, not only the appearance and structure of the temple, but to

describe its ordinances and worshippers, the ministry of the priesthood, and the ritual of

its services.”13 Description becomes evocation. But his purpose is not limited to

description, evocation, or even giving greater insight into New Testament literature, but

is to use the New Testament to give meaning of the temple in the supersessionist terms,

as Jesus fulfills the meaning of the temple and its rites.14 The meaning-making aspect of

11
See Bloch-Smith (“Who is the King of Glory?”) for an overview of the temple’s Edenic symbolism,
noting both ancient Near Eastern architectural parallels and what is distinctive to Solomon’s temple. She
argues that the symbolism of the temple centers on kingship. The oversized courtyard implements
emphasize God’s magnitude and omnipotence in his triumphant enthronement, while the interior of the
temple represented (or was) Eden, God’s “audience hall” on earth as the enthroned king. The building plan
itself and its proximity to the Israelite king’s residence gave a divine endorsement to the human kingship.
These elements, too, rely upon similar myths as the pattern found in ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies,
emphasizing the divine combat with chaotic powers (the sea, represented by the “bronze sea” or “molten
sea”) after which the God is triumphantly enthroned in the temple. These traditions, being found in the
very architecture of Solomon’s temple, percolated throughout Israelite, Jewish, and Christian traditions,
being found from the Psalms to the book of Revelation, but what they do not emphasize that the Priestly
tradition of the Pentateuch and its successors emphasize the inclusion of Rest, or for Israelite-based
traditions, Sabbath-rest, within this broader pattern.
12
I have been using a later edition: Alfred Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, Updated
Edition (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994).
13
Edersheim, Temple, vii.
14
Edersheim, Temple, vii.
 9

the book is two-fold: Jesus fulfills, while the Rabbis pervert, the meaning of the temple,

sacrifices, rituals, and festivals, including the Sabbath.

In his chapter on Sabbath and the temple, he describes the weekly activities in the

temple that occur on the Sabbath: how Psalm 92 fits with Sabbath worship; how far back

the obligation for Sabbath goes; how the term Sabbath relates to the Exodus; how the

name of Sabbath came to be applied to other festivals (Rosh Hashanah; Yom Kippur,

etc.); the change of priestly courses on the Sabbath; the extra burnt offering on the

Sabbath; the weekly removal of the “bread of the Face” on the Sabbath; and the

Sabbatical year. The chapter begins with a quotation from Mark 2:27-28: “The Sabbath

was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the

Sabbath.” He includes an entire section on the Rabbinic “perversion” of the Sabbath, and

a concomitant section on the Rabbinic “perversion” of the Sabbatical year.15 He portrays

the ancient meaning of the Sabbath as a quintessential battle between the spirit of the

Law (Christ) and the letter (Rabbis). Such description completely misses the co-

implicated symbols of Sabbath and temple as they developed in the Pentateuch and even

in Edersheim’s oft-cited Hebrews. The only extra-quotidian meaning he can give to the

Sabbath and the temple is a fulfillment theology that points toward Christ’s advent.

Menahem Haran too relies on a descriptive approach, but without the Christian

supersessionism.16 Haran’s analysis is perhaps the most detailed treatment to date.

15
Edersheim, Temple, 135-7, 149-50.
16
Haran, Temples and Temple Service; cf. the massive description of ancient Israelite customs and
institutions by Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Customs, trans. John McHugh (Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997). He also extensively describes ancient Israelite sanctuaries
and temples, but spends about five pages on the “Theology of the Temple,” which includes its symbolism
(325-30); while for much of the discussion, he provides a synthetic discussion of all types of sanctuaries in
the Bible (real, legendary, ideal)—his primary category of temple theology is the temple (and tabernacle) as
the seat of the divine presence—his discussion of symbolism latches exclusively onto Solomon’s temple.
 10

Haran builds his analysis in painstaking detail, analyzing nearly every aspect of the

priesthood, the cult, the Tabernacle, the tent of meeting, and the temple, delineating the

differing conceptions of these institutions between J/E, P, D, and sometimes Ezekiel.

The major point of presenting the morphology of the priesthood, cult, the Tabernacle, and

temple as variously constructed in the different threads of tradition is to demonstrate the

antiquity of the priestly (P) source.17 Nonetheless, although Haran thoroughly describes

the Tabernacle for three chapters, he does not discuss anything regarding meaning or

symbols of anything cultic until he reaches his discussion of Solomon’s temple, where he

focuses exclusively upon the symbols of the ark and the cherubim in the inner sanctum.

He does discuss some of this in relation to the Tabernacle in order to distinguish the

ark/cherubim connection in P from E and D. His focus on describing what the

Tabernacle would have looked like (if it had actually existed) and how the description

depends upon and alters the temple and the tent of meeting occludes the connection

between the Tabernacle, the creation account, and the Sabbath, because this connection is

made primarily in terms of literary association and juxtaposition, something someone

taking a more positivistic empiricist approach would miss.

Nonetheless, even those who attend to temple symbolism do not account for the

coordination of holy space and holy time. Raphael Patai’s Man and Temple in Ancient

Jewish Myth and Ritual is an influential attempt to understand the rituals and symbols of

17
One reason Haran often adduces Ezekiel as evidence, other than the fact that it is a document
predominantly concerned with the temple and cult imagery, is that he wants to place Ezekiel in a
relationship with P in which Ezekiel succeeds rather than precedes P in the morphology of cult, priesthood,
and temple/tabernacle. Even so, although Haran wants to argue that P literarily crystallized before the
exile, he still maintains that it was not “published” until Ezra after the exile. The evidence Haran puts forth
could be argued either way; meaning, it does not necessarily support Haran’s argument, but the very fact
that it could be argued either way suggests that the assumptions of which the post-exilic virtual consensus
could easily be reassessed. Ultimately, it is an issue of emphasis, since most people who argue for literary
crystallization of P as post-exilic would maintain the antiquity of the traditions within P.
 11

the temple as part of a unified whole, anticipating Mary Douglas’s analysis of Levitical

laws as a “symbolic system.”18 Patai’s central thesis is that rituals and their

accompanying myths performed in and about the temple employ “sympathy” between

“man” and “nature” and between “temple” and “cosmos.” Although he primarily argues

this concerning the late second temple period, almost all of his evidence is rabbinic,

relying primarily upon the Mishnah with amplifications from the Talmudim, midrashim,

and Josephus, and making larger comparisons with Ugarit, Babylon, and the Vedas.19 He

methodologically relies upon cultural anthropologists and folklorists from the late

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, particularly Frazer and Robertson Smith.

Patai’s thesis of sympathy explicates a limited range of evidence (one ritual).20

His listing of the cosmic symbols of the temple, although at times speculative, set the

interpretive agenda for decades. His understanding of the symbolic relationships between

18
Raphael Patai, Man and Temple in Ancient Jewish Myth and Ritual (London: Thomas Nelso and Sons,
Ltd., 1947); Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London:
Routledge, 2002 [original 1966]); idem, Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
19
Central to his argument is the “ritual of water-libation” associated with Sukkoth, as described in the
mishnaic tractate of the same name. He argues that this extremely elaborate ritual, with each aspect of it
compared with other ancient Near Eastern examples, was a “sympathetic” ritual in which like influences
like. He contends that all “primitive” religions saw the dividing line between humans and nature as either
negligent or non-existent; thus, the actions of humans in society affected the natural world. A correctly
performed water will affect nature, bringing rain and fertility. He culls out of the rabbinic corpus the
relationship between the upper (male) waters and the lower (female) waters, how they are kept separate by
God, and, how, when they meet under controlled circumstances, they provide prosperity and fertility, but if
they meet in uncontrolled or forbidden ways, they can be destructive (flood narratives). The temple fits
into all of this in an interesting way. First, it works as a “stopper” for the unruly lower waters; thus, the
ritual of the water libation, performed in the temple, both controls the falling of the upper waters (male) and
the rising of the lower waters (female). Because every aspect of the temple has symbolic significance, this
ritual is even more effective; therefore, in addition to the natural sympathy between humans and the natural
order, the actions done in the temple are simultaneously enacted in the natural world, intensifying the
sympathy, but, at the same time, adding the complication of including God in the mix. Both man and
temple represent the world, and so to make things happen in the natural world, humans enact rituals in the
temple. The sympathy is three-fold: the ritual, the person doing it, and the temple. This sympathetic
interrelationship has consequences in other areas, such as moral codes, especially regarding sexual
behavior, and additional correspondences between king, people, and cosmos.
20
Cf. de Vaux (Ancient Israel, 328), who notes that the Bible itself provides very little evidence of the
cosmic symbolism that later texts, particularly Josephus and Philo, ascribed to it.
 12

humans, temple, ritual, and cosmos is intuitive and still influential, even if the theoretical

apparatus he used (Frazer, Robertson Smith, and Tylor) has been discarded. Nonetheless,

with all of these symbolic interrelationships, even using ancient Near Eastern sources, he

does not bring in the interrelationship between Sabbath and sanctuary, or even Rest and

sanctuary. Much of what he left implicit can be reformulated in a more productive way

through Mary Douglas’s discussion of ritual in terms of a “symbolic system.”

The difficulty of the book, as is the case with the theorists he relies upon, is the

absence of historicity. He does not distinguish between the activities in the late second

temple period and the later rabbinic discussions, and when he adduces biblical evidence,

especially in his section on the symbols of the temple, there is no sense of time. He does

state that meanings are often contested and understandings shifting, but this is lost in his

actual discussion, except insofar as the “original” meaning of a ritual had been lost by the

late second temple period and needed to be recovered through ancient Near Eastern

comparisons, which merely emphasizes that he thinks a ritual has one true timeless

meaning, identified with its original meaning, that can be remembered, forgotten, or

distorted, instead of imagining that the meaning itself is dynamic.21

Similarly, R. E. Clements’s God and Temple investigates symbolic meanings of

the temple and its cult, but also how they change over time. His stated purpose is “to

inquire into the meaning and theological significance of the Jerusalem temple as a

witness to the presence of God in Ancient Israel.”22 By working through the various

layers of tradition following a version of the Documentary Hypothesis, Clements

21
See, for example, Patai, Man and Temple, 34.
22
R. E. Clements, God and Temple (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965) ix.
 13

delineates how the symbolic aspects of the temple and its accoutrements indicate the

temple as God’s dwelling place as it participates symbolically in God’s cosmic abode in

the Old Testament, by working through the various layers of tradition. Examining an

impressive array of sources throughout the Hebrew Bible into the Second Temple period,

emphasizing ritual reenactments of Sinai, he ultimately sets up a dialectic relationship

between immanence and transcendence in Hebrew tradition.

In his conclusion, Clements claims there was a tension since Sinai between

immanence and transcendence that was never resolved in Israelite and Jewish literature.

While his analysis had a subtle Protestant theological bias against the Priesthood and cult,

especially when discussing the prophets, the Deuteronomic reform, and the Second

Temple period, he concludes with patent Christian supersessionism, stating that Christian

Incarnational and Trinitarian theology finally provided resolution. Thus a theological

teleology seeped into an otherwise astute analysis of the multiple trajectories of the

understanding of divine presence in Hebrew Bible.

In his analysis of the Tabernacle, however, he never mentions the Sabbath. The

Sabbath arises only in a discussion of its importance in exile apart from the temple in

potentially maintaining the divine presence in exile. In that sense, they may be related,

giving two aspects of the divine presence in time and space, but serially.23 This

observation could be developed, especially when considering that the sources that

brought the Sabbath and sanctuary together as inextricably interrelated and equivalent in

holiness were themselves either composed or compiled in or just after the Babylonian

23
A similar serial trajectory is maintained by Green ("Sabbath as Temple”), except regarding Rabbinic
materials, and by J. Z. Smith (To Take Place: Toward a Theory in Ritual (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1987) 74-95) regarding Christian sources (see below).
 14

Exile. Moreover, the Sabbath and the sanctuary, whether expressed in terms of holiness

or heavenliness, express the temporal and spatial proximity to God’s “presence.”

Specifically focusing on giving a comprehensive overview of the Tabernacle,

Craig Koester’s The Dwelling of God fills a desideratum.24 The book primarily discusses

the Tabernacle in the New Testament (Acts 7, 15; John 1:14; Revelation; Hebrews),

arguing that NT writers used the Tabernacle for specific aims and assessments that

differed from writings that specifically invoke the temple. In order to accomplish this

examination of the New Testament use of Tabernacle imagery, he surveys the Tabernacle

traditions in the Old Testament and Intertestamental Jewish literature, presenting the most

comprehensive discussion of the Tabernacle to date.

Koester’s work does not have a thesis nor does he provide new trajectories for

research, but he compiles every scrap of literature in which the word “tent” or

“Tabernacle” occurs, exegeting each piece. By doing a word study, he ignores places

where the Tabernacle might be implied, which is rare, but this especially distorts his

analysis of Hebrews. He concludes that the Tabernacle as used in the New Testament 1)

reflects the growing separation between Christianity and Judaism, but, in such an

environment, 2) Tabernacle imagery provided continuity between Christianity and

Israel’s cultic heritage, which it had previously done in periods of flux in Jewish history,

and 3) recalls God’s faithfulness to covenant promises, usually with concomitant

Sinai/Mosaic covenant imagery. These insights would have given coherency to his work

as a thesis if he had not saved them for his conclusion. Nevertheless, his contribution to

24
Craig R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernalce in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish
Literature, and the New Testament (Catholic Biblical Quarterly Mongraph Series 22; Washington D.C.:
The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989).
 15

scholarship is his encyclopedic resource of the Tabernacle traditions through the end of

the first century. In addition to his specific exegetical work on particular passages which

are useful, Koester, in a larger sense, draws attention to the various ways the Tabernacle

is understood in relation to the temple as both continuous and discontinuous. It is

noteworthy that all of the sources that make a connection between the Sabbath and the

sanctuary prefer to use Tabernacle language rather than temple, even as they apply

imagery from the temple to the Tabernacle.

Turning heavenward, Martha Himmelfarb’s Ascents to Heaven in Jewish and

Christian Apocalypses,25 investigates the “Book of Watchers” (1 Enoch 1-36), the

Testament of Levi, 2 Enoch, the “Similitudes of Enoch” (1 Enoch 37-71), the Apocalypse

of Zephaniah, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Ascension of Isaiah, and 3 Baruch, all

apocalypses that feature a heavenly journey by a human adept. Her basic argument is

that, beginning with the “Book of Watchers,” “these works envision heaven as a temple,

and I argue that this conception determines the way they describe ascent.”26 In her first

chapter, she establishes that Enoch’s ascent depicts heaven as a temple and discusses

sources of aspects of this depiction, especially from Ezekiel. Because heaven is a temple,

the angels are priests. One way this depiction of heaven as a temple and the angels as

priests affects the understanding of ascent can be found in the motif of transformation. In

order to stand before God in the heavenly temple, the adept is transformed into an angelic

being through priestly investiture. This transformation can occur to extremely righteous

heroes who ascend (Enoch, Moses, and especially Levi) or the righteous dead (especially

25
Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993).
26
Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, vii.
 16

in the Apocalypse of Zephaniah and the Ascension of Isaiah). Her fourth chapter on the

secrets of nature and the cosmos revealed to the ascender seems quite disjointed from her

primary topic of heaven as a temple, angels as priests, and angelification as priestly

investiture. In this chapter, however, she rehearses some of the well-known connections

between Eden and the temple and how this plays out in the “Book of Watchers,” a text

that opposes the primeval history in Genesis. She argues that this opposition emerges in

1 Enoch through placing the paradisiacal garden, particularly the tree of life, on a

mountain west of Jerusalem and not on Zion itself and avoiding the term “Eden.”27 This

shows that the connection was too well established to be avoided, but that it was

contested. Due to her source material—except for the occasional reference to the Songs

of the Sabbath Sacrifice—any interrelationships between the heavenly temple and

Sabbath are left out in preference for Edenic symbolism.

C. T. R. Hayward’s Jewish Temple takes a strictly exegetical approach of how

various non-canonical sources from the Second Temple period or slightly later discussed

the temple.28 As such he does not describe what the temple was like nor necessarily its

symbolism, but through a line-by-line commentary on these ancient sources how different

people who wrote treatments viewed the temple. The result—presented in his

introduction—is that he does not find a single, all-encompassing significance for the

temple, but a series of broader themes, any one of which cuts across multiple, but not all,

of the authors and works discussed (Hecataeus of Abdera, Letter of Aristeas, Wisdom of

Jesus ben Sira (Hebrew), Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira (Greek), Jubilees, Philo of

27
Himmelfarb, Ascents to Heaven, 73-4.
28
C. T. R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1996).
 17

Alexandria, Josephus, and Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum). These

include: stability and order of the cosmos, which indicates that the covenant and

sacrificial service maintain cosmic order, the temple as symbolic of the cosmos, the

importance of the temple and angelic worship, in which human and divine officiates

mirror one another in their worship of God as king, the invocation of the Lord on Israel’s

behalf, and the imagery of light. Hayward treats each theme individually and does not

relate one theme to another in his reflections. Nonetheless, when one steps back, one

finds that each theme overlaps with other themes that can be found in different works.

While each individual theme may be of interest in itself, the accumulation of a series of

overlapping themes has a significant cumulative effect of indicating the persistence of a

series of interlocking ways of understanding in the late Second Temple period. Although

Hayward discusses them as separate elements, their overlapping implies a more

sophisticated understanding of the temple as a system of interrelated meanings upon

which different authors would partially draw.

Jonathan Klawans’s Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple,29 approaches the temple

and its cult as a symbolic system. He responds to evolutionary and supersessionist

scholarship that has read sacrifice and the temple as things that were replaced by

something better (Jesus for Christians and prayer for Jews), and that has read polemics

that derive from Hebrews (for Christians) and Maimonides (for Jews) anachronistically

back into sources, such as the prophets, the Dead Sea Sectarians, aspects of the New

Testament, and Rabbinic literature. Relying upon his earlier work, Impurity and Sin in

29
Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of
Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
 18

Ancient Judaism,30 and Mary Douglas’s Purity and Danger and Leviticus as Literature, he

depicts purity laws, sacrifice, and the temple as a single “symbolic system.”31 This

“symbolic system” points to two things: imitatio dei and sacrifice as attracting and

maintaining the divine presence in the community, resembling Clements on the latter

point. Building the Tabernacle in the P source, or the temple in the Deutoronomic

history, is a form of imitatio dei due to the cosmic significance of those structures.

The manner of imitation shifts in the Second Temple period, mirroring a

conceptual transformation of the sanctuary. Klawans carefully distinguishes between

sources that portray the temple as cosmos and those that conceptualize the temple in the

cosmos. The first is the idea that the temple represents the cosmos and the second that

the temple is a copy of the heavenly temple.32 The latter concept results in the need for a

heavenly priesthood to correspond to the earthly one; thus, they tend to have a highly

developed angelology. In these works, imitatio dei slips into imitatio angelorum.

Imitation takes a heightened role in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Klawans argues that it

was because the Dead Sea sectarians revered the temple that they had to abandon it, due

to its ritual and moral defilement. They believed that their community substituted for the

temple, but he argues that the community saw this substitution as provisional and

comparatively deficient to a physical temple. In this novel idea, the Dead Sea Sect

“templized” the actions of their community, leading to the last form of imitation: imitatio

templi. In the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, I would add, imitatio angelorum blurs into

30
Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
31
Douglas, Purity and Danger; idem, Leviticus as Literature.
32
This distinction is developed from George W. MacRae, "The Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the
Letter to the Hebrews," Semeia 12 (1978): 179-99.
 19

imitatio templi, since the heavenly structures are alive and participate in the angelic

liturgies that the community evokes through the recitation of the Songs themselves.33

Although Klawans does not discuss the Sabbath or how the Tabernacle was

associated with it, his central thesis that the symbolic system of purity, sacrifice, and the

temple was organized by the concept of imitatio dei and attracting the divine presence

can be integrated into a discussion of Sabbath and Tabernacle in P, the Songs of the

Sabbath Sacrifice, and in Hebrews, since Sabbath rest is also an act of imitatio dei and a

means to experience the sanctuary’s holiness and God’s Presence (Exod 20:8-11).

Parallel to Klawans’s discussion of the Second Temple period, the Sabbath becomes a

form of imitatio angelorum in Jubilees and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, the latter

of which combines imitation of angels and the temple, since the temple is itself a living

being that praises God. In Hebrews, moreover, this becomes imitatio Christi.34

In all of these works on the various forms of the sanctuary—temple, Tabernacle,

idealized, or heavenly—whether discussed descriptively, symbolically, theologically, or

literarily, no connection is made between the Sabbath and the sanctuary. Scholars rarely

discuss the relationship between spatial and temporal dimensions of holiness. They have,

nonetheless, provided important frameworks for discussion that can be extended into the

interrelationship between the Sabbath and the sanctuary. While these authors focus on

33
See particularly Ra'anan S. Boustan, "Angels in the Architecture: Temple Art and the Poetics of Praise in
the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice," Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions, ed.
Ra'anan S. Boustan and Annette Yoshiko Reed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 195-212.
34
Unfortunately, Klawans’s analysis of Hebrews is a single paragraph, an unfortunate lacuna due to the
role it takes in his opponents’ writings. He is more concerned with showing how NT passages have been
misread as supersessionist, such as the last supper (in both the gospels and Paul’s letters) and the
overturning of the tables in the Temple. Yet, when he claims that Hebrews “is the basis of Christian
supersessionist approaches to the temple, and, by extension, it is the ancestor of many modern scholarly
approaches to the temple and its ritual,” (243) a clearer analysis of how this is so seems wanting.
 20

individual symbols of the temple or the sanctuary and its cult as a symbolic system, this

work will treat the sanctuary as a symbol within a broader scheme of creation, sanctuary,

enthronement, and rest established and remade in narrative and ritual, although not

ignoring individual elements of the sanctuary as it relates to that scheme.

Preliminary Steps Toward a Discussion of the Intersections of Space and Time

Nonetheless, a few scholars investigating Second Temple Judaism and early

Christianity have discussed the relationship between the Sabbath and the sanctuary or

spatiotemporal holiness more generally.

Margaret Barker briefly discusses how time and place relate to one another within

the temple in the Gate of Heaven.35 She brings sacred space and time together in the

concept of eternity—not eternity in terms of never-ending time, but as beyond or without

time because it lies outside of the ordinary experience of time but undergirds what we

experience as time. Eternity ties into sacred space, since eternal space is entirely present

in each and every sacred space. She calls this eternal space and time that is beyond our

perceptive space and time “mythical.” Mythical space and time exist in eternity outside

of regular experience while providing the existential foundation for that experience.

When coupled with ritual actions, particularly the Day of Atonement, this

conception seems persuasive: each ritual event taps all sacred space and time beyond

itself—a momentary touch of eternity. One of the insights of Barker’s work is that she

recognizes that the interplay between eternal space and time is grounded within the

interrelationship between myth and religious observance, but she comes down strongly

35
Margaret Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem
(Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008) 58-65.
 21

on the primacy of myth as generating ritual, whereas they can probably be best described

as co-emergent. Nonetheless, is the “eternal present” the same thing as “without time” or

is it time at its greatest intensity, condensing all of time into a moment? She eventually

claims the eternal presence of myth in space and time through the temple makes space

and time “ambiguous.” The temple anchors eternal space and time as the holiest place on

earth and the ritual actions performed there gave a taste of eternity for those present.

This, however, ignores much of how the ancient texts themselves represent sacred

space and sacred time and their interrelationships with one another; it flattens a highly

variegated conception into a singular eternity that may represent but one facet of their

interrelationship. While sacred space and sacred time conceptually differ from regular

space and time, they are not always or even frequently represented as without time and

without space. Considering that not all sacred spaces and sacred times are equal, it may

be that only with the most sacred time of the Day of Atonement when the high priest

enters the most sacred space of the holy of holies that the intersection of sacred space and

sacred time approaches eternity. Nonetheless, the greatest difficulty with her work is that

she creates a static view of the temple: she sees the ancient conceptions of how the

“mythical” space and time of the temple was understood and experienced as unchanging

from the first temple through the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice into early Christianity.

In The Three Temples,36 Rachel Elior constructs a mystical tradition that begins

with Ezekiel, resurfaces in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and flowers in the Hekhalot texts,

arguing for an ongoing tradition eventually in conflict with the Rabbinic tradition.

Ezekiel is the first step due to Ezekiel’s vision of the glory of God upon the throne, which

36
Rachel Elior, The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism, trans. David Louvish
(Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004).
 22

attracts temple imagery to it. Ezekiel’s vision also provides an important link through

Shavuot, since Ezekiel’s vision and the Sinai theophany were liturgically recited on

Shavuot (see Part 2). At the second stage of Jewish mysticism, Elior productively raises

the relationship between sacred time, sacred space, and ritual. She indicates that sacred

time (solar calendar) and sacred space (heavenly temple) collapse into each other through

ritual (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice). This manner of understanding the role of the

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is an important step in comprehending the relationship

between the Sabbath and temple through ritual coordination.

Since the Songs clearly rely upon Ezekiel and resemble later liturgical fragments

in the Hekhalot, a case can be made for her trajectory from Ezekiel to the Songs to

Hekhalot literature. And although she productively draws together sacred space and time

through ritual, her work does not explain why or how the relationship between the

Sabbath and the heavenly temple in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice developed. That

connection, I argue, derives from “P” and “H,” which evince strong relationships with

Ezekiel and in which the Tabernacle/temple, Sabbath, and creation were all already

intertwined. Even so, the nexus of space, time, and ritual provides an important new step

or model in understanding the dynamics operative in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

and the intersections of sacred space and sacred time more generally.

C. K. Barrett’s article on the eschatology of Hebrews written a half century ago

comes just short of making this connection.37 He demonstrates that the typical Christian

conviction that eschatological events had already begun, while others remain in the future

37
C. K. Barrett, "The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews," The Background of the New Testament
and Its Eschatology, ed. W.D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964) 363-
93.
 23

“as objects of hope,” can be “found as clearly in Hebrews as in any part of the N.T.”38

Moreover, he argues that eschatology has a central place in Hebrews, and that passages

that may not appear eschatological, when analyzed more fully reveal eschatological and

general apocalyptic origins or nuances. He organizes the evidence into three parts: rest

(Heb. 3-4), faith and the heavenly city (Heb. 11), and the heavenly temple, providing

supporting evidence for these aspects from the Hebrew Bible, Philo, other New

Testament sources, Epistle of Barnabas, 2 Baruch, and Rabbinic sources. But the only

connection he makes is that each of these three themes show a common underlying

eschatology; they are all “partly fulfilled and partly forward-looking.”39 In short, he

misses the intratextual nexus of relationships within Hebrews that reinterprets the land-

as-rest tradition or the promised land tradition in light of Sabbath, to make heaven a place

of Sabbath rest, which would tie together his sections of “The Saints’ Everlasting Rest”

(366-73) and “The Pilgrim’s Progress from the City of Destruction to the Celestial City”

(373-83). The heavenly temple and the Sabbath rest-as-heavenly-homeland traditions are

further woven together through the exhortations to enter God’s “Sabbath rest” and the

“sanctuary” and to approach/draw near to God and God’s throne. This connection has

been linguistically argued by John M. Scholer,40 but it can be conceptually placed into a

larger trajectory of the ongoing reconfigurations of the relationship between the

institutions of the Sabbath and the temple.

38
Barrett, “Eschatology,” 364.
39
Barrett, “Eschatology,” 384. Even these juxtapositions, though, fall out of later important analyses of the
eschatology of Hebrews; see, for example, MacRae, “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology,” 179-99.
40
John M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSS 49; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).
 24

Conclusion

Despite this dearth of scholarly attention to their interactions, the Sabbath and the

sanctuary in ancient Jewish Priestly reflection became two entwined expressions of

God’s holiness in time and space, set within the broader ancient Near Eastern

cosmogonic pattern expressed in narrative and ritual of creation, enthronement, the

sanctuary, and rest. The observance of the Sabbath and reverence of the sanctuary

became metonyms for keeping the covenant for the Holiness Code and Ezekiel and

means of imitating God. In the time of exclusion from the destroyed sanctuary in the

Babylonian Exile, making the Sabbath and the sanctuary equivalent in holiness allowed

people to experience the sanctuary’s holiness in a non-local manner. As such, Sabbath

observance became the temporal access to the spatial holiness of the sanctuary in the

Priestly sources, the Holiness School, and Ezekiel. This holiness of time and space, in

turn, attracted to itself other themes and symbols of ancient Jewish Priestly thought, such

as God’s throne / enthronement, imitating God’s holiness, and (re)envisioning what God

showed Moses on Sinai—the “pattern” of the Tabernacle and its accoutrements.

As these initial Priestly configurations were passed down from generation to

generation, the Sabbath and the sanctuary as the dual expressions of God’s holiness

participating in this broader pattern would rotate into new configurations with different

emphases placed upon many of the satellite themes, but most notably being re-imagined

on a heavenly plane, becoming the temporal and spatial expressions of God’s

heavenliness. Those reflecting upon this priestly tradition during the Second Temple

period reconfigured the relationship to changing religious circumstances in ancient Judea

in which greater emphasis was placed on a heavenly world that mirrored the earthly one,
 25

creating the patterns we find in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the

Hebrews. Once the primary locale of the sanctuary was placed in the heavenly realm, in

the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice the Sabbath again becomes the temporal access to the

heavenly sanctuary. For Hebrews the Sabbath rest and the heavenly Tabernacle become

the dual expressions of God’s heavenliness, as one seeks to enter the Sabbath rest and

enter the sanctuary to draw nearer to God.

Space-Time as an Interdisciplinary Lens

Space-time, chronotope, or spatiotemporality provides the conceptual language to

discuss the intersections of space and time: when space and time meet, conjoin,

juxtapose one another, point to one another, meld, blur, and even become one another.

All of these things occur in this study as the Sabbath (sacred time) and the sanctuary

(sacred space) are juxtaposed (P), become metonyms of the covenant (H and Ezekiel),

become temporal and spatial expressions of God’s holiness (P, H, Ezekiel) and

heavenliness (Hebrews)—that is, proximity to God—one becomes the means of access to

the other (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice), and become equated with one another.

This conceptual language was coined during the early twentieth century, and is

shared by physicists, anthropologists, and literary critics. Einstein’s breakthrough in the

General Theory of Relativity postulated that time and space are dimensions of one

another, that this “space-time” bends based upon the distribution of mass and energy

throughout the universe, and is relative to one’s own position. Anthropologists similarly

speak of ritual actors molding and being molded by their spatiotemporal environment in

what Catherine Bell calls “ritualization.” More generally, one can speak of culturally-
 26

determined conceptions of space and time and their interrelationship, or even of a

multitude of space-times within a society that coexist and interrelate. Likewise literary

criticism in the wake of M. M. Bakhtin speaks of the chronotope, the “timespace,” in

literature. These articulations of physical, literary, and cultural space-time are, in fact,

related with one another. Bakhtin, for example, credits Einstein for providing the catalyst

for his own reflections, while Bell’s language often closely resembles physicists’.

This interdisciplinary perspective is not just the totality of experience suggested

by Kant’s a priori filters of all perceptions in terms of geography and history, but the

specific spatiotemporal constructions of particular groups in specific places at particular

times expressed in their own literatures. A work may express space-time, or, in fact,

multiple space-times in dialogue with one another, with other texts, and with broader

societal configurations. This is what we find with regard to the Sabbath and the

sanctuary in ancient Jewish and Christian literature.

Space and Time as Separate, but Complementary: The Kantian Inheritance

These twentieth-century discussions in physics, literary criticism, and

anthropology found precedence and inspiration in the works of nineteenth-century

philosophers, poets, and novelists. Kant famously spoke of time and space as primary

filters or primary categories of our experience and, therefore, our knowledge:

We may classify our empirical knowledge in two ways: either according to

conceptions or according to time and space in which they are actually found. The
classification of perceptions according to concepts is the logical classification,
that according to time and space the physical classification. Through the former
we obtain a system of nature (systema naturae), such as that of Linnaeus, through
the latter, a geographical description of nature…. Description according to time is
history, according to space is geography…. Geography and history fill up the
 27

entire circumference of our perceptions: geography that of space, history that of

time.41

In this 1802 articulation, time and space form the filters of our sense experience, our

perceptions, and the basis of all physical, as opposed to conceptual, classification.42 Time

and space here are juxtaposed as the “circumference of our perceptions,” covering the

sum of our experiences, but remain separate; they are complementary and differentiated

spheres that together encompass all of perception, but do not seem to interact or intersect.

This way of envisioning space and time has persisted among otherwise disparate

thinkers. Even for those who do not necessarily see time and space as a priori filters,

maintaining their separation provides a ready a posteriori means of organizing one’s

analysis. For example, in his 1975 work, Discipline and Punish (Surveiller et punir),43

Michel Foucault discusses the birth of the prison from the spatial and temporal

regulations throughout modern society—schools, hospitals, factories, military barracks,

prisons—that he ultimately derives from monastic practices. In the chapter on “docile

bodies,” he sequentially discusses these monastically inspired regulations in terms of

subdivision and partitioning. He directly juxtaposes how space is subdivided in terms of

the “art of distribution,”44 in which bodies are distributed in their own places where they

can be analyzed, surveyed, and controlled, and how time is subdivided in terms of the

41
Immanuel Kant, The Nature of Geography, trans. R. Hartshorne, Second Edition (Washington D.C.,
1946).
42
For a brief discussion of this passage and Kantian geography particularly, although largely excluding the
other half of experience, history, see Smith, To Take Place, 31-5.
43
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York:
Vintage Books, 1995).
44
Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 141-149.
 28

“control of activity,”45 establishing regularized temporal rhythms and imposing

“particular occupations.”

Both undergo similar processes of subdivision and partitioning, and thereby

regulation, in terms of space and time respectively, but the processes become mirrored

only by implication in terms of juxtaposition of analysis; although both spatial and

temporal disciplines are enacted upon the body, there is no discussion of the relationship

between the partitioning of space and the subdivision of time, how spatial and temporal

practices specifically interact with one another, coordinate, or reinforce one other (e.g.,

how does the distribution of bodies in, for example, military barracks or into separate

spaces in hospitals or prisons relate to the concurrent regulations of time through time-

tables that a soldier, patient, or inmate undergoes?).

In the study of religion, Mircea Eliade discussed sacred space and sacred time as

complementary. In The Sacred and the Profane, he separately and serially discusses these

complementary spatial and temporal forms of the sacred in two chapters: “Sacred Space

and Making the World Sacred”46 and “Sacred Time and Myths.”47 This separation of

space and time aligns, therefore, with a separation of ritual with sacred space from myth

with sacred time. Somewhat similarly to Foucault, Eliade discusses space and time as

non-homogenous, as humans—through experience that “precedes all reflection on the

world”—experience breaks and eruptions in space and time that separate sacred from

profane. Problematically, he discusses profane space as amorphous and sacred space as

45
Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 149-156.
46
Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion, trans. Willard R. Trask (Orlando:
Harcourt, Inc., 1959) 20-65.
47
Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 68-113.
 29

the only “really existing space,” rather than considering the non-amorphous spatial

configurations of civic, village, and other spaces.48 Sacred—and therefore real—space is

constituted through the religious experience of a hierophany that establishes a fixed

point—the axis mundi—a center that provides the means of all orientation (e.g., Delphi

and Mt. Zion). This sacred space originally indicated by some sort of religious

experience is subsequently constructed and maintained through ritual; ritual reenacts or

reproduces initial divine indications—as he later relates with regard to sacred time

(making the mythical past present), imitating the gods keeps humans within the sacred.49

Even as Eliade primarily places space in terms of hierophany and ritual, and,

more broadly, separates ritual and myth, he occasionally brings them together. The

clearing and organization of a space to make it sacred through ritual is a cosmogonic

reenactment; it “repeats the paradigmatic work of the gods.”50 He suggests that the

making of sacred space indicates a systematic means of viewing the world that includes

beliefs, rituals, myths, etc., coming together:

(a) a sacred place constitutes a break in the homogeneity of space; (b) this break is
symbolized by an opening by which passage from one cosmic region to another is
made possible (from heaven to earth and vice versa; from earth to the
underworld); (c) communication with heaven is expressed by one or another of
certain images, all of which refer to the axis mundi: pillar (cf. the universalis
columna), ladder (cf. Jacob’s ladder), mountain, tree, vine, etc.; (d) around this
cosmic axis lies the world (=our world), hence the axis is located “in the middle,”
at the “navel of the earth”; it is the Center of the World.51

48
Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 20-23. He does suggest a varying gradation of sacrality that breaks
into the profane and quotidien, since, he claims, “profane existence” never occurs in a pure state; it is
always mixed with some traces of the sacred and “the religious valorization of the world.”
49
Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 99.
50
Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 32-36, 50-58.
51
Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 37.
 30

This “system” produces myths, rites, and beliefs: the experience that indicates the axis

mundi and the spatial configurations of the axis mundi are prior and central. This may be

true of some sacred spaces—his differentiation of sacred “place” from profane “space” is

something to consider in light of Tuan’s work (see below)—yet he does not consider

varying distributions of the sacred within a place or throughout space.

Nonetheless, unlike Foucault, Eliade did not leave the relationship implicit, but

explicitly discussed sacred space and sacred time’s complementarity as they undergo

similar processes: “For religious man, time too, like space, is neither homogeneous nor

continuous.”52 Although the chapter title itself associates sacred time with myth—it is

“primordial mythical time made present”—it is only by rites that one is allowed to pass

from profane time to sacred time. Religious festivals and liturgies reactualize mythical,

sacred events, again particularly cosmogonic ones.53 It is recurrent and infinitely

repeatable. By this emphasis, Eliade creates a timeless quality to ritual as it repeats past-

made-present, and thereby timeless, mythical events; it is in his words, “homologized to

eternity.”54 While this model indicates that the sacred must always be remade, it suggests

that it is always remade the same way, and, although this may be the perspective

suggested by internal perspectives of ritual events, documentation over time indicates that

ritual events constantly change and adapt or are recast in their meaning according to

shifting historical circumstances (e.g., in my discussion, shifts in practice and meaning

52
Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 68.
53
Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 77-85.
54
Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 70.
 31

occur with the loss of sacred space in the destruction of the first temple, the separation

from the temple in the Qumran community, and the destruction of the second temple).

Eliade’s emphasis on cosmogony for both sacred space and sacred time—the

clearing of space reenacting the creation of the world, and such reenactment occurring at

appointed times in festivals and liturgies—is integral to my own analysis of the

intersection of sacred space and sacred time and ancient Jewish Priestly writings, but not

generally necessary for the organization of all sacred space and sacred time. For

example, the Exodus as a legendary event is not set in a mythical time and is not fully a

cosmology, although it is the creation of the Israelites as a people and includes the

cosmological element of God splitting the sea, and yet the festival of Passover and the

Feast of Unleavened Bread recount this event in sacred history rather than the mythical

past.55 A corrective, therefore, would posit that ritual together with narrative (whether

cosmogonic or not) coordinates sacred space and sacred time.

There are some moments, however, when Eliade suggests a direct relationship

between space and time: the temple. While the temple is a microcosm, it also

symbolizes sacred time: “The intimate connection between the cosmos and time is

religious in nature: the cosmos is homologizable to cosmic time (=the Year) because

they are both sacred realities, divine creations.”56 At this point, Eliade approximates the

ancient Jewish Priestly coordination of sanctuary and Sabbath as equivalent and

interrelated expressions of God’s holiness in space and time.

55
The only exception Eliade suggests to this rule is the case of Christianity, because it acknowledges the
historicity of Christ and thereby sanctifies historical time rather than only mythical time (Eliade, The
Sacred and the Profane, 72).
56
Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 73-6.
 32

While Foucault implied that the regulation of space and time were mirrored

processes, Eliade more explicitly saw sacred space and sacred time as similarly acting as

ruptures or irruptions into ordinary space and time. Like Foucault they are

complementary and mirrored. Nonetheless, he postulates intersections of space and time

through temple architecture that equates the enclosed circular cosmos and year and, more

thoroughly, the ritual reenactments of myths, making past mythical time present through

liturgical time and recreating sacred space by imitating the primordial cosmogonic spatial

configurations initiated by the gods. The biggest difficulty of his thought is that he

primarily but not exclusively associates ritual with space and myth with time, rather than

seeing them both relating to both. Nonetheless, he complicates his own divisions when

speaking of cosmology and the ritual reenactment of myth that creates sacred space and is

regulated by the rhythms of sacred time. Both are highly integrated with both—it is

difficult to extricate narrative from practice or suggest that one is prior to the other as, for

example, Eliade suggests that cosmogony is prior to practice and that experience is prior

to both, whereas experience may itself result from practice. This coordination of

narrative and ritual with space and time is an analytical window into the possibilities of

the relationship between templum and tempus, a relationship that is not just

complementary, but intimately, intricately, and multiply intersecting.

The Physical, Ritual, and Literary Intersections of Space and Time

The fusion of space and time in the social construction of the world would come

not from Kantian philosophy and its successors, but from a nineteenth-century poet and

an early twentieth-century theoretical physicist: Edgar Allen Poe and Albert Einstein.
 33

Edgar Allen Poe, in a cosmological essay entitled, Eureka (1848), said, “Space

and duration are one.” Lacking analytical rigor or mathematical attempts at proof

(relying instead on intuition and inspiration), this philosophical essay was the first

modern publication to make this connection, as well as anticipating the Big Bang Theory,

the Big Crunch Theory (that the universe is dynamic, expanding and will eventually

collapse), and black holes—concepts that did not gain mainstream scientific support until

the 1930s for the expansion of the universe (as proven by Edwin Hubble’s telescope) and

the 1960s for the Big Bang.57 He also was the first to solve Olbers Paradox—why the

sky was dark at night—which had baffled astronomers since Kepler.58 H. G. Wells also

relied upon the interdependence of time and space in his science-fiction novel, The Time

Machine (1895), in which “time is only a kind of space.”59

Poe had anticipated some of most important scientific theories and discoveries

that discuss the interdependence and identity of space and time. Nonetheless, the best-

57
Edgar Allen Poe, Eureka, A Prose Poem: Or the Physical and Metaphysical Universe (New York:
Putnam, 1948). This essay and the lecture upon which it was based received a cold reception from all
quarters—from theologians to scientists. Nonetheless, Poe thought it was his greatest work and would be
proven true by posterity. One notable admirer of Poe’s essay was none other than Albert Einstein, who,
after reading it wrote in a letter that it was “eine schöne Leistung eines ungewöhnlich selbständigen
Geistes” (1934). Interestingly, it would be Einstein who would provide the scientific foundation for many
of Poe’s anticipations through his theory of “specific relativity” (1905) and “general relativity” (1915),
although, it seems, he read Poe’s essay after he had articulated his theories. See Charles W. Schaefer,
"Poe's "Eureka": The Macrocosmic Analogue," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 29.3 (1971): 353-
65; Tom Siegfried, Strange Matters: Undiscoverd Ideas at the Fronters of Space and Time (New York:
Berkley Books, 2002) 132; see Stephen Hawking, Brief History of Time: The Updated and Expanded
Tenth Anniversary Edition (New York: Bantam Books, 1998) 41.
58
The paradox is based upon the assumption that the universe is infinite and therefore contains an infinite
number of stars. If there are an infinite number of stars giving off light, why is it dark at night? It took the
poet, Poe, to postulate that the universe was finite in both space and time, and that the light of far away
stars had not yet reached earth; thus, darkness can reign at night.
59
See P. Nahin, Time Machines, Second Edition (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1999) 144ff.; Siegfried,
Strange Matters, 278.
 34

known and most sustained reflection comes from physics.60 Newtonian physics, which

understood time as constant and independent, was shattered by Einstein’s two theories of

relativity—Special Relativity (1905) and General Relativity (1915)—in which time is not

independent and constant, but a variable relative to space. This theory predicts, for

example, that time slows down or “dilates” at high speeds—the closer one approaches the

speed of light, the only constant in Einstein’s universe—and at high gravities.61 Between

Einstein’s two papers his former math teacher, Hermann Minkowski declared in 1908,

“Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere

shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.”62

Minkowski’s mathematical calculations created the terminology of “space-time.”

Henceforth, in physics, “space-time” combines the three dimensions of space and the one

dimension of time into a single coordinate system used not only to determine objects, but

events. According to Einstein’s theories and Minkowski’s calculations, time and space

bend into one another, or, more accurately, space-time curves with respect to the

distribution of velocity and mass (or gravity).63 According to Einstein’s famous equation,

the energy of velocity and mass in gravitational pull are interchangeable: E = MC2

(Energy=Mass X Speed of Light Squared). These effects interact. According to Stephen

60
For a very readable introduction on what follows, see Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 15-35.
61
See Siegfried, Strange Matters, 269-78.
62
Quoted in Siegfried, Strange Matters, 278.
63
The general theory of relativity takes gravity into account. It is the theory of general relativity alongside
quantum mechanics that accounts for the work being done in theoretical physics to this very day. Much of
the major work in theoretical physics is the attempt to unify these two sometimes overlapping, sometimes
disparate theories. Many of these unification attempts are occurring in string theory; see Hawking, Brief
History of Time, 171-86; Siegfried, Strange Matters, 183-206. For a further discussion on the curvature of
space-time in Einstein’s equations, see Siegfried, Strange Matters, 161-6.
 35

Hawking: “Space and time are now dynamic quantities: when a body moves, or a force

acts, it affects the curvature of space and time—and in turn the structure of space-time

affects the way in which bodies move and forces act.”64

The most extreme curvature of space-time is the black hole.65 A black hole forms

after a very massive star runs out of nuclear fuel, its core implodes into a single point of

infinite or very high density and nearly zero volume, and its outer layers are blown away

in a supernova explosion. Afterwards, the black hole bends the light rays and anything

else emitted from the star into an irreversible orbit—once locked into a black hole’s orbit,

there is no escape. After passing a boundary called the “event horizon” the black hole’s

gravity is so strong that nothing can escape it—not even light. After passing the event

horizon, the extraordinarily high levels of gravitational pull sucks in matter, light, and

space-time itself. If one can imagine a regular high mass object with a large gravitational

pull, like the sun, creating a smooth groove in space-time, then a black hole would bend

or dent space time to an extreme and perhaps unknown degree, far greater than any other

known or postulated phenomenon.

The deformations of space-time around a black hole interact with matter in its

orbit, and this matter, especially gas, is sped up in orbit, heating up and constricting,

creating X-Ray frequencies that can be used to measure the gravitational orbits and,

therefore, the deformations of space-time surrounding the black hole, before these

elements pass the event horizon and crash into a “singularity.” At a “singularity,” where

the curvature of space-time is “infinite,” all predictions set up by theoretical physics

64
Hawking, Brief History of Time, 34.
65
Hawking, Brief History of Time, 52, 83-101; Igor Novikov, Black Holes and the Universe, trans. Vitaly
Kisin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Siegfried, Strange Matters, 212-220.
 36

break down, even the principles of cause and effect, because time itself is so warped that

it effectively ends. In classical theory these same conditions exist with the Big Bang: the

universe would have been at a point of infinite density with an infinite curvature of

space-time, although the possibility has been challenged.66

While literary and ritual scholarship will inform this study, they, in turn, derive

their spatiotemporal schemas from physics, which provides an apt framework to analyze

the dynamics of ancient concepts of holiness vis-à-vis the Priestly correlation of time and

space through the Sabbath and sanctuary. The Priestly tradition, too, understands sacred

time and space to be of the same stuff; namely, the Sabbath and the sanctuary are dual

66
Because the laws of physics break down at a “singularity,” it is impossible to predict anything before the
Big Bang. In other words, even if there were events that occurred before the Big Bang, if the language of
“before” is even appropriate with such a warping of space and time, the mathematical models of physics
would breakdown and, therefore, there is no predictability or clear chain of events. With such a
breakdown, purported events “before” the Big Bang have no consequences in the current configuration of
the space-time of the universe. See Hawking, Brief History of Time, 49, 103-117, 119-46. While
Hawking’s earliest work based upon black holes developed the concept of a singularity, all of his recent
efforts have been toward disproving his earlier theories. He now claims that there need not have been a
singularity at the beginning of the universe and in a black hole. To do this, his recourse is to both quantum
mechanics and imaginary numbers in mathematics, creating the concept of “imaginary space-time.”
Mathematics using “real” numbers cannot handle “infinity” very well, but imaginary numbers can. In this
model, the black hole and the big bang have no singularities. They do not have a point where space and
time completely break down, at least in “imaginary space-time” even though they do in “real space-time.”
In imaginary space-time, the points of infinite density, and subsequently the universe as a whole, do not
begin and end in singularities, but are finite and without boundary. If this is the case, this will remove the
element of the complete unpredictability at the center of a black hole. At the same time, it means that if
space-time has no boundaries, it has no beginning, no single moment of creation. There is something else
that is interesting in our case with space-time in “imaginary space-time”: the distinction between space and
time disappears completely (Hawking, Brief History of Time, 139-44). In imaginary space-time, the
directionality of time is indistinguishable from the directionality of space, whereas in real space-time, they
are much easier to distinguish. It is because of this aspect of time in imaginary space-time, its much greater
directionality and versatility, that it can be finite and without boundary—like space, one can go forward
and backward in imaginary time. It is basically a four-dimensional model of the two-dimensional
Euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry is based upon a two-dimensional surface that is curved (e.g., the
surface of the earth). The surface of the earth is finite, but it is without boundary—you can keep going and
going if you walk in any particular direction. Hawking’s more recent idea is similar, but includes an extra
space dimension and time. Like a globe, space and time would form a closed surface with no boundaries,
no beginning and no end. It is self-contained. So, we have moved from absolute time (Newton) to relative
space-time (Einstein) to imaginary space-time (Hawking). See Hawking’s summary statements, Brief
History of Time, 189-90. Other physicists, however, are seeking alternatives in which to discover the
“before” of the Big Bang, suggesting multiple bangs, etc. See Siegried, Strange Matters, 127-57. The key
similarity with these approaches is that if the mathematical model fails at a certain point, such as at a
singularity, perhaps it is time to adjust the math or find a new mathematical model.
 37

expressions of God’s holiness. God’s holiness provides the organizing principle that

curves Priestly space-time: the closer it is to the ultimate holiness of God, the stronger

the curve,67 which indicates the increasing holiness of time (Sabbath) and space

(sanctuary) in the priestly system, until, in fact, they reach a point of intense holiness (see

the holiness gradient in part 2), meet (e.g., in the Day of Atonement), and, in later re-

articulations of the relationship, blur into one another (as in Hebrews).

To switch to language more common in the humanities and social sciences, the

Sabbath and the sanctuary constitute dual interrelated dominating symbols of God’s

holiness expressed in time and space respectively, with other themes, such as the

enthronement, creation, the Glory, and so forth, becoming supplementary symbols to the

dominating symbols.68 I use the terminology of “symbol” rather than “sign,” since the

Sabbath and the sanctuary participate in the qualities they point toward—God’s

holiness—becoming the primary organizing expressions of that holiness in time and

space. Their generality and metonymic qualities—revering the sanctuary and observing

the Sabbath (or not profaning the sanctuary and the Sabbath) become representative of

maintaining (or breaching) the entire covenant and maintaining in Hebrew Bible or

accessing in Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Hebrews the divine presence—give them

their dominant status.69 In this case, the Sabbath and the sanctuary in the Priestly Source

67
Smith, To Take Place, 66, also makes an analogy to the holy of holies in Ezekiel’s sacral mapping of the
ideal temple as a “black hole” that is “constantly collapsing its periphery in on itself.”
68
See Victor Turner, Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1967) 19-47.
69
According to Turner (Forest of Symbols, 27-30) such symbols tend to have the qualities of condensation
(representing a wide variety of actions and things in a single symbol) and unification (unifying disparate
significations or supplementary symbols).
 38

condense (as metonyms) and unify the entire covenant and cultic legislation, while

providing a unification point for other aspects of the symbolic system.

In later rearticulations, when applied to the heavenly realm, this demonstrates a

dynamic quality, allowing it to transform itself in new situations. Thus, while initially in

the Priestly Source of the Pentateuch, for example, the Sabbath and the sanctuary are

intertwined dominating symbols of God’s holiness, in later reflections and rearticulations

of the Priestly system, such as in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the

Hebrews, they become dual intertwined symbols of heavenly realities (and access to

those realities), in which, at least in the case of Hebrews, their temporal and spatial

qualities overlap. In all cases they represent the qualities most associated with God, and,

therefore, the sacred spatiotemporal coordination in which God could be most manifest.

These symbols, and their interrelatedness, are mobile, traveling through ritual

performances, narratives, texts, and, among texts, different genres: legal, prophetic,

liturgical, and homiletic.70 Priestly traditions that brought together the Sabbath and the

sanctuary as the conjoined expressions of God’s holiness in the Priestly Source of the

Pentateuch and Ezekiel and of heavenly realities (and access to such realities) in the

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews plays out in conjoined

narrative and ritual patterns. Controlling the discussion of space and time through both

(1) mythic patterns and (2) liturgical reckoning set the terms for how sacred space and

sacred time meet and merge. These myths and rituals were mutually embedded—

narrative within the ritualized performance and the performance within the narrative—

while participating in a larger pattern of symbols in which the dual intertwined symbols

70
Victor Turner (From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play (New York: PAJ Publications,
1982) 22) emphasizes the performative and literary mobility of symbols and symbolic relationships
 39

of the Sabbath and the sanctuary dominated.71 This inseparability of how the Sabbath-

sanctuary correlation weaves itself into narrative and ritualized performance reflects the

ease with which the theoretical discussions of narrative space-time and ritualized space-

time, by literary critics and anthropologists respectively, align in their basic outlines.

Subordinating Time to Space, Time Superseding Space

After Einstein, several thinkers have considered varying relationships between

space and time, applying physical space-time relativity to social configurations. Most

thinkers of space and place—whether designated “sacred” or not—occasionally discuss

its relationship to time. In accordance with their projects, this leads to a subordination of

time to space or the privileging of space over time.

71
As discussed with regard to Eliade one should not separate “myth” from “ritual.” Most of the “mythic”
narratives discussed set down the prescriptions of the ritual performance, which in turn mirror the narrative.
The ritual performance is embedded within the narrative and vice versa. This mutual embedding is of the
utmost importance for this study since I will not discuss what actually happened in a ritual performance,
but only through the textualization of it, which is an interpretation of the performance which may or may
not have been more broadly shared by the participants and/or observers of the performance. The
dichotomization between “myth” and “ritual” on even broader terms of “thought” and “action” has been
systematically critiqued by Catherine Bell (Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1992) 13-66). Often, thinkers will privilege one term over the other—usually thought over
practice—obscuring the relationships between understandings of ritual and ritual and how these are
mutually inclusive. Most importantly for Bell, this dichotomization obscures the process by which specific
maneuvers, actions, speech, bodily positions, etc., become ritualized. Ritualization rather than ritual
highlights the process of differentiation that occurs within a social environment, demonstrating a rather
dynamic process and interchange between the social environment—all social activities, including
ritualization, are “situational” (81)—and ritualized performances with the interpretation, thought, myth,
narrative, etc., being included as a part of the ongoing ritualization process. Or, in her words, ritualization
“stresses the primacy of the social act itself, how its strategies are lodged in the very doing of the act, and
how ‘ritualization’ is a strategic way of acting in specific situations” (67). These strategies, then, set some
activities off from others, and, within this framework, create and privilege the distinction between sacred
and profane (74). Borrowing from Bourdieu’s discussion of habitus, a correlative to this is that one does
not just have “myth” but the process of “myth-making” alongside ritualization. “Myth-making” rather than
“myth” emphasizes that “myth” too is an action or process; Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 80, 88-93.
 40

Yi-Fu Tuan occasionally discusses time’s relationship to space in his work, Space

and Place.72 This work emphasized the importance of the body and experience in the

organization and perception of place/space, while differentiating between place, which is

enclosed, perhaps cluttered, but comforting, and space which is open, unprotected, but

also free. Place offers security; space, freedom.73 The posture and structure of the body

aligns space and time and relationships between space and time and other human beings.

Tuan presents a model in which the body organizes space and time but aligning the

temporal future with the spatial horizontal front and vertical above and the temporal past

with the spatial horizontal back and below. He also aligns the space-time of front-future

with the sacred and the space-time of back-past with the profane. Unfortunately, these

alignments only occur in Tuan’s visual model and are absent in his discussion.74

The alignment of space and time with relation to the body occurs not just in terms

of posture, but in movement: as one moves in space, one also moves in time. In daily

life, time and space are inseparable and experienced together.75 There are alignments of

different types of time with differentiation of space and place. Open space—representing

freedom—coincides with future possibility; it is hopeful time. An enclosed place invokes

time as well, but more by invoking the past. Movement into new space can allow one to

move back in time, since, as many thinkers and novelists (e.g., Proust) recognize, time is

inscribed into space. Thus when one travels to a new place, one also travels in time;

72
Yi-Fu Tuan, Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1977).
73
Tuan, Space and Place, 3.
74
Tuan, Space and Place, 34-50.
75
Tuan, Space and Place, 118-135, 179-98.
 41

when one visits Rome in the twenty-first century, one is also swept into a parade of time

of ancient Rome with the ruins of the Forum and the Colosseum, into medieval and early

Modern Rome with the varying churches and the Vatican, crowding modern buildings,

stores, and restaurants. A city can be a tour of time as one walks through it. In this,

however, there are other relationships between time and place from human experience: it

takes time to know a place; if time is flow, rhythm, or movement, then place is pause; and

perhaps it takes such a pause to evoke and invoke the past.

Henri Lefebvre has probably considered the varying relationships between

temporal rhythms and spatial configurations more than anyone else in Production of

Space76 and his essay on “rhythmanalysis.”77 Lefebvre complicates this division, since a

rhythm is both temporal and spatial and places are already implicated in temporality.

While recognizing the codependence of space and time, his work deliberately

subordinates time to space. He discusses space in modern capitalist societies in terms of

spatial practices (production and reproduction, how people perform day to day actions

through space), representations of space (how space is represented—e.g., maps), and

representational spaces (complex symbolisms within spaces). These are not separate

categories, but rather Lefebvre’s project considers the intersections between the three of

them.78 His reasoning for subordinating time to space is that this subordination is

characteristic of capitalist societies, his primary focus of study. This may not be mere

76
Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (Malden: Blackwell
Publishing, 1991).
77
Henri Lefebvre, Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time and Everyday Life, trans. Stuart Elden and Gerald Moore
(London: Continuum, 2004). His work on space was to be a corrective of the Marxist over-emphasis on
time, and his temporal discussion is not teleological like Hegel and Marx, but cyclical, emphasizing
repetition and daily rhythms.
78
Lefebvre, Production of Space, 33, 230.
 42

subordination, but a complete subjection, enslavement, of time to space in the modern

consumption of abstract space.79 Lefebvre sees the sundering of space from time, or the

ruling of time from the despotic consumed and consuming space as socially unhealthy,

with the symbiosis of space and time as socially healthy, having a certain degree of

cooperation and wholeness, which is relegated to a utopian past and future.80

79
Lefebvre (Production of Space, 339-40) writes “The consumption of space has very specific features….
Space is the envelope of time. When space is split, time is distanced—but it resists reduction. Within and
through space, a certain social time is produced and reproduced; but real social time is forever re-emerging
complete with its own characteristics and determinants: repetitions, rhythms, cycles, activities. The
attempt to conceive of a space isolated from time entails a further contradiction, as embodied in efforts to
introduce time into space by force, to rule time from space—time in the process being confinded to
prescribed uses and subjected to a variety of prohibitions.” See further p. 393.
80
Recently, Mark K. George (Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2009) has adapted Lefebvre’s categories of spatial practice, representations of space, and spaces of
representation to develop a “spatial poetics” to discuss the social dynamics of the tabernacle in terms of
“spatial practice,” “conceptual space,” and “symbolic space.” He uses spatial practice to discuss the
inventories of the materials of the tabernacle (Exod. 28:4; 31:7-11; 39:33-41), its placement in the camp,
and how the ordered space of the tabernacle grants or denies access through its curtains and the veil give
material verisimilitude to the tabernacle and have social implications: who can go where and when. An
important aspect of the configuration of the sacred enclosure is that it is portable, and, likewise, all of its
sacred objects are built for portability.
For conceptual space, he turns to Bruce Lincoln’s theories of taxonomic systems (Bruce Lincoln,
Discourse and the Construction of Society: Comparative Studies in Myth, Ritual, and Classification
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)). He discusses how conceptual defining of space through
classification exerts social power through that space. Under this category, he discusses the instructions for
building the tabernacle and the conceptual framework that undergirds its spatial configuration. For this, he
considers the language of holiness. The tabernacle has a graded holiness from most holy inward to lesser
holiness as one moves outward and eastward. George, however, finds holiness deficient as an analytic
category because it is a “first-order” category, an emic descriptive rather than an etic analytic category.
Instead, he seeks a conceptual taxonomy undergirding this space in terms of people—who has access and
who does not. The broadest category is the congregation, with whom God made the covenant. Then he
turns to principles of descent (only Levites can handle the tabernacle materials and move in and out freely)
and hereditary succession within this descent from father to son starting with Aaron for the high priesthood.
This is not “holiness” but explains holiness. Nonetheless, this still operates on the “holiness” principle of
separation—the congregation separated from other peoples, the priests separated from the congregation,
and the high priest separated from the priests, becoming more holy with each separation.
Under symbolic space, George considers the Tabernacle’s extensive symbolism of creation, and
the Tabernacle itself can as the final act, the sealing, of God’s creation. For this, George relies upon
Stephen Greenblatt’s discussion of “circulation of social energy” (Stephen Greenblatt, Shakespearean
Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1988)) to describe how the tabernacle acquired and adapted particular symbols from Mesopotamia
(particularly the Enuma Elish) combined with those from the J/E Epic, transforming both in the process,
but leaving both recognizable.
While George occasionally discusses temporal dimensions of his spatial poetics, it remains an
auxiliary aspect of his analysis. Indeed, any spatial poetics implies a temporal poetics on every level—
practical, conceptual, and symbolic; they are interdependent. Every approach and insight with regard to the
 43

This may make his analysis of capitalist spatial production of limited use for non-

capitalist societies, yet in so doing he shows sensitivity to time's relationship to space and

how this relationship shifts from society to society, or from mode of production to mode

of production. He sees a variety of relationships between space and time, particularly

how time is inscribed into space in non-capitalist societies, but then banished and

subordinated in capitalist societies, which seek to remove time from social spaces or to

regulate time as space became predominant.81 In a schematized historical development—

not necessarily in terms of ages, but in terms of a series of “moments” of modes of

production—he suggests a shifting relationship in which time and space are inseparable

in a “prehistoric” stage (pre-capitalism) that he associates with early agricultural

societies, then in a “historical” stage of accumulation in which space becomes abstracted

and separated from time, and finally in the “third moment,” representing a post-capitalist

utopian society, space and time are both ungraspable and unthinkable, but the unity of

space and time is restored: “time is known and actualized in space, becoming a social

reality by virtue of a spatial practice. Similarly, space is known only in and through

time.”82 This final moment takes part of its cue from Einstein, introducing the “moment”

with the words “relative now, space and things are reunited; through thought, the contents

of space, and in the first place time, are restored to it.”83 Nonetheless, when he discusses

ancient societies, particularly ancient Greece and Rome in terms of his three-part rubric

tabernacle could be applied to temporal separations as well. What is necessary, therefore, is a

spatiotemporal poetics.
81
Lefebvre, Production of Space, 95-6, 277-8.
82
Lefebvre, The Production of Space, 219; cf. Lefebvre, Rhythmanalysis, 8, 51.
83
Lefebvre, Production of Space, 218.
 44

of spatial practice, representation of spaces, and representational spaces completely omits

the specific relationship to time in this pre-capitalist society—although perhaps a society

that is characterized by accumulation and a degree of abstraction.84 Greece receives more

credit than Rome to the degree that Lefebvre argues, “in ancient Greece a complex

relationship existed between urban space and the temporality (rhythms) of urban life.”85

When speaking of “rhythm” likewise he takes an almost Einsteinian view that different

rhythms can be analyzed as the convergence of time, space, and energy, deliberately and

effectively applying the terms for “cosmological reality” to social formations.86

In Europe, Lefebvre sees the medieval period as a turning point in space-time

relationships. In early medieval Europe, “time was not separated from space; rather it

oriented space—although a reversal of roles had begun to occur with the rise of medieval

towns, as space tended to govern those rhythms that now escaped the control of nature (or

of nature’s space).”87 Lefebvre, somewhat like Foucault would, recognized the

increasing diversification of times and places, but, unlike Foucault, saw them as linked:

“As places diversified, so did social time: business time (the time of the market hall)

ceased to coincide with the time of the Church, for its secularization proceeded hand in

hand with that of the space to which it related.”88

84
Lefebvre, Production of Space, 243-46, 248-50. See also how he refers to the Parthenon as rounding out
“the city’s spatio-temporal space.” It includes time and space, but doubles the spatial dimension.
85
Lefebvre, Production of Space, 332.
86
Lefebvre, Rhythmanalysis, 60, 67-9. He also discusses the spatialization of time and the temporalization
of space (10, 60, 89).
87
Lefebvre, Production of Space, 267-8.
88
Lefebvre, Production of Space, 268; Lefebvre, Rhythmanalysis, 73-4.
 45

The Most Holy Chronotope: Mythic Narrative Patterns

The interrelatedness of the Sabbath and the sanctuary reemerged from genre to

genre, from ritual to narrative, or from narratives used in liturgy, winding itself through

all generic boundaries between ritual, liturgy, and homily. In the Pentateuch, for

example, the rituals are prescribed in the mythic past setting of Sinai in which the larger

ancient Near Eastern nexus of creation, rest, Tabernacle building, and enthronement

organize the architectonic Priestly narrative. Later performances, such as the liturgies in

the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice rely upon, assume, and recreate this mythic setting,

attempting to see what Moses saw on Sinai and what Ezekiel saw in his visions.

While the ritual event provides a specific setting for the meeting of sacred time

and sacred space, our access to the conceptualization of time and space in these ancient

documents resides exclusively in ancient documents. The interrelatedness of narrative

space-time as it interfaces with the space-time of its historical environment has been

discussed by M.M. Bakhtin, in terms of what he called the “chronotope” or the “time-

place,” partially inspired by Einstein’s theories of relativity. For Bakhtin, the chronotope

is the entry point into the meaning of literature, the sub-structure of all narrative, the

generator of generic differentiation, and ultimately the interaction between the space-time

of the reader and the representation of space-time in literature.89

89
Many scholars have begun to read biblical literature using with Bakhtin—as many will claim, one does
not read through Bakhtin as if he were a lens, but with him, in dialogue with his work—with varying
degrees of success. See especially the bibliography to Roland Boer, ed., Bakhtin and Genre Theory in
Biblical Studies (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007) 205-219. Simply because her work proves
fairly significant for my reading of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice later in this monograph, see
particularly Carol Newsom’s uses of Bakhtin in her works: Carol A. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic
Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2004), although
she de-emphasizes Bakhtin’s Chronotope while emphasizing other temporal intersections (175); Carol A.
Newsom, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
 46

Atlhough Bakhtins’s essay, “Forms of Time and the Chronotope of the Novel:

Notes toward a Historical Poetics,” first appeared posthumously in 1975,90 he began to

formulate his ideas on the “chronotope” of the novel around 1937-8. According to a

footnote at the beginning of his essay, he found the germinating seed for his ideas from

attending a 1925 lecture on the “chronotope in biology,”91 and credited Einstein for

providing a catalyst and analogy for his broader discussion and his terminology:

We will give the name chronotope (literally, “time space”) to the intrinsic
connectedness of temporal and spatial relationships that are artistically expressed
in literature. This term (space-time) is employed in mathematics, and was
introduced as part of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. The special meaning it has
in relativity theory is not important for our purposes; we are borrowing it for
literary criticism almost as a metaphor (almost, but not entirely). What counts for
us is the fact that it expresses the inseparability of space and time (time as the
fourth dimension of space).”92

This near metaphor productively maps a broad range of natural and cultural phenomena

from astrophysics and biology to literature and anthropology. This indicates that the

interconnection of spatial and temporal registers provides access into interconnected and

interrelated space-time symbols in different manifestations in different forms of literature

in their historical and ritualized contexts. It is the nexus point or intersection between

literary and historical worlds. Commenting on the above quotation, Roland Boer writes,

“the chronotope comes into play when an author creates new fictional worlds. Yet those
90
M. M. Bakhtin, "Forms of Time and of the Chronotope of the Novel: Notes Toward a HIstorical
Poetics," The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael
Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982) 84-258. Cf. his discussion of the chronotope in M. M.
Bakhtin, "The Bildungsroman and Its Significance in the History of Realism (Toward a Historical
Typology of the Novel)," Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, ed. Caryl Emerson and MIchael Holquist,
trans. Vern W. McGree (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986) 10-59. There he develops other aspects
of the chronotope through a reading of Goethe, such as the visibility of time (seeing time in space),
multitemporality or synchronism (seeing multiple times or temporal stages in contiguous space), localized
or particularized space and time, and the chronotope of the trace or vestige.
91
Bakhtin, “Forms of Time and of the Chronotope,” 84, n. 1.
92
Bakhtin, “Forms of Time and of the Chronotope,” 84.
 47

worlds must relate in some way to the actual world in which the author happens to live.

The intersection between actual and fictional worlds happens by means of the

chronotope.”93 The chronotope not only indicates the intersections of space and time, but

between different forms of representing the world, providing the intersection between

narrative, perceptions of historical and social circumstances, and ritual representations.94

The “chronotope” allows one to discern the interface between the “real historical”

time and place and the representation of time and place in a text: “A literary work’s

artistic unity in relationship to an actual reality is defined by its chronotope.”95 Bakhtin

speaks of this in terms of literature assimilating historical senses of time and place. This

assimilation will vary in different historical locations and periods through the generic

techniques available to represent it, but, given the interaction or dialogue between literary

works, will rely upon and transform earlier chronotopes in such a dialogue.

Bakhtin’s understanding of the chronotopic elements of the novel is complex; his

space-time framework is not “transcendental” like Kant’s, but experiential. He bases his

chronotope on how one experiences space-time and how that experience intersects with

its representation in a text (or other cultural artifacts, for that matter). The chronotope, or

93
Boer, Bakhtin and Genre Theory, 2.
94
Bakhtin concludes on this point: the chronotope is the entry point or framework of meaning. In a
moment of Kantian inspiration, Bakhtin writes: “We somehow manage however to endow all phenomena
with meaning, that is, we incorporate them not only into the sphere of spatial and temporal existence but
also into a semantic sphere…. For us the following is important: whatever these meanings turn out to be,
in order to enter our experience (which is social experience) they must take on the form of a sign that is
audible and visible for us (a hieroglyph, a mathematical formula, a verbal or linguistic expression, etc.).
Without such temporal-spatial expression, even abstract thought is impossible. Consequently, every entry
into the sphere of meaning is accomplished only through the gates of the chronotope” (Bakhtin, “Forms of
Time and of the Chronotope,” 257-8, emphasis original; cf. 85, n. 2). At the same time as appropriating the
wholeness and interconnectedness of space and time from physics, here Bakhtin shows that he clearly took
a cue from Kantian transcendental a priori categories of perception, but whereas Kant leaves them separate,
for Bakhtin the meaning is generated from their interrelationship.
95
Bakhtin, “Forms of Time and of the Chronotope,” 243.
 48

chronotopes, of a work enter into dialogue with the world outside the work—with the

author, performer, listener, or reader of a work. Being in dialogue, these chronotopic

worlds (shaped by the chronotope) continually interact and respond to one another.96

This dialogue between work and environment operates diachronically across

works and genres, as different writers are in dialogue with both previous works and with

their own environment. For example, the Priestly contributors to the Pentateuch and

Ezekiel were in dialogue with earlier Israelite traditions and with their Babylonian

imperial environment when producing their work. In turn, the Songs of the Sabbath

Sacrifice and Hebrews were in dialogue with the Pentateuch and other earlier works and

their current religious environment in the Roman Empire. As such, genre is relational—

all works are in dialogue (expressing formal similarities and differences) with previous

and contemporary works in the same genre and those in different genres. Bakhtin writes:

Always preserved in a genre are the undying elements of the archaic. True, these
archaic elements are preserved in it only thanks to their constant renewal, which is
to say, their contemporization. A genre is always the same and yet not the same,
always old and new simultaneously…. A genre lives in the present, but always
remembers its past, its beginning.97

Such a text, therefore, is in concurrent dialogue what came before and its contemporary

environment. It is old and new. It is a node in a broad nexus of interrelationships with

older and contemporary literature and its current historical environment.

Fused through the “chronotope,” space and time form a single “carefully thought-

out, concrete whole”: “Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically

visible; likewise, space becomes changed and responsive to the movements of time, plot

96
Bakhtin, “Forms of Time and of the Chronotope,” 252.
97
M. M. Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevky's Poetics, ed. Caryl Emerson, trans. Caryl Emerson
(Minneapolis: Univeristy of Minnesota Press, 1984).
 49

and history.”98 For Bakhtin, the chronotope, the precise intersection between time and

place in a piece of literature, is the foundationally constitutive category for literature,

determining genre—particular sequencing interacting with placing tend to indicate the

type of literature one is reading: there is “adventure time,” “an alien world in adventure-

time,” “adventure novel for everyday life,” “biographical time,” “folkloric chronotope,”

“idyllic chronotope,” and the Rabelaisian “carnivalesque chronotope.”99 The category

that Bakhtin does not address, however, is the “holy chronotope.” There is rarely an

overarching “chronotope,” but each work develops its own “chronotope,” and each motif

within a work may have its own chronotope, so, between and within works, there emerge

multiple “chronotopes.” They may operate slightly differently given the narrative

complexity or direction of a given work. While different novels have different

chronotopes, they also have some basic interactive similarities.

These chronotopes are the foundation of narrative: “They are the organizing

centers for the fundamental narrative events of the novel. The chronotope is the place

where the knots of the narrative are tied and untied. It can be said without qualification

98
Bakhtin, “Forms of Time and of the Chronotope of the Novel,” 84; cf. 243, 250.
99
Gary Saul Morson and Caryl Emerson (Mikhael Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics (Standford: Stanford
University Press, 1990) 87-8) have suggested that the chronotope, as a tool in historical poetics, and the
carnivalesque, as an ahistorical concept, are “two extremes of the same continuum,” presenting the carnival
as the “antichronotope,” insofar as the chronotope measures norms and the carnival suspends and mocks
the norm. But my reading of Bakhtin gives a different sense. Although the carnival does invert and
suspend the norm, as the norms shift and change so do their inversions: the carnivalesque is something that
changes throughout time, although it finds its greatest and most developed exemplar in Rabelais. In that
way, the carnival has its own chronotope. For example, Mikhail Bakhtin (Rabelais and His World, trans.
Hélène Iswolsky (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984) 9-10, 401-412) emphasizes the strong
sense of time (rather than atemporality and ahistoricity) of the feast and the carnival—it was anti-
ahistorical: “Carnival was the true feast of time, the feast of becoming, change, and renewal. It was hostile
to all that was immortalized and completed.” The difference between “prosaic” and “carnival” according
to Bakhtin was not that one was historical and the other ahistorical, but rather the former had a “vertical”
view of space and time in which every movement was either a movement up or down a continuous
hierarchy (e.g., Dante’s Divine Comedy) in which spatial hierarchy dominated devaluing time, whereas the
latter was horizontal and highly valued time. Moreover, he directly uses “time-space” to discuss
carnivalesque negation.
 50

that to them belongs the meaning that shapes the narrative.”100 The chronotope provides

the sub-structure of representation, bending representation to its variegated

chronotopography. Much like space and time bend toward the generic requirements, they

shape those very conventions. Given that the “gates of the chronotope” provide the entry

point for meaning, the chronotopophy of semantic indications, or the curvature by which

meaning travels throughout literature, and is simultaneously an assimilation or

representation of space-time as experienced, the chronotope itself provides an

intersecting concept between genres (in fact, generating the differentiations of genre) and

between one’s historical context, the representation of that context in literature, and a

useful point of interdependence with the ritualization of space-time in sacred space-time.

While Bakhtin’s own usage tends toward analysis of narrative structures,

excepting his article on the bildungsroman, it is fruitful for works that specifically

concern themselves with the meaning of space and time.101 This analysis seeks to think

with the chronotope in a variety of the highly spatiotemporally charged moments, some

of which attend to narrative structures, others to ritual prescriptions, and still others the

liturgical materials. It is not just the gates to the narrative structures and environments,

but how a particular spatiotemporal relationship between the Sabbath and the sanctuary

emerges and is adapted to new circumstances—often involving the loss of the sacred

space of the temple—across different generic boundaries.

100
Bakhtin, “Forms of Time and of the Chronotope,” 250.
101
Carol A. Newsom, "Spying Out the Land: A Report from Genology," Bakhtin and Genre Theory in
Biblical Studies, ed. Roland Boer (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007) 29-30; Michael E. Vines,
"The Apocalyptic Chronotope," Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies, ed. Roland Boer (Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2007) 109-117; Christopher C. Fuller, "Matthew's Genealogy as
Eschatological Satire: Bakhtin Meets Form Criticism," Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies, ed.
Roland Boer (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007) 119-132.
 51

The Ritual Event: Coordinating and Exposing Holy Space-Time

Ritual provides the “event” that exposes and configures the holy space of the

sanctuary and holy time of the Sabbath. If an “event” is the coordination of space and

time or space-time, then the “ritual event” coordinates holy space and holy time, holy

space-time. In this event the dominating symbols, such as the Sabbath and the sanctuary,

are the focal elements of ritual interaction.102 One example of this is the Day of

Atonement (Leviticus 16, 23). This was the most holy day in the year (sacred time) when

the high priest approached and entered the holy of holies in the temple (sacred space).

Through this liturgy sacred time and sacred space met and synergistically intensified.

The last few decades have seen an explosion in studies of ritual. The social

environment of ritual and the geographic indicators of the mythic patterns entwined with

the particular ritual practices have increasingly gained attention. Jonathan Z. Smith, for

example, has emphasized the importance of “place”:103 how ritual organizes “place,” how

mythic stories create a geography of sites of ritual significance, how places shift hands

from group to group yet maintain their significance for multiple groups, the “recovery” of

place, and the movement from place to place in particular ritual enactments. In his overall

analysis, while recognizing temporality, he consistently subordinates time to place in

ritual contexts. This occurs when he is discussing “spatiotemporal” juxtapositions in

memory: “So it is with memory: it is a complex and deceptive experience. It appears to

102
Turner, Forest of Symbols, 22. Other terms one might use would be “cultural performance,” “social
drama,” etc., to draw out similarities between ritual space-time and dramatic space-time or the similarities
between ritual and theater in general; see Turner, From Ritual to Theatre, 7-19.
103
The difference between “place” and “space” is that space is abstract, but also associated with liberation
and freedom, while place is imbued with cultural meaning, particularly oriented to the body. See Tuan,
Space and Place, 3; Smith, To Take Place, 26-7.
 52

be preeminently a matter of the past, yet it is as much an affair of the present. It appears

to be preeminently a matter of time, yet it is as much an affair of space.”104 As such, this

would be an opportune moment when Smith would discuss the coordination of space and

time in memory, perhaps mythic memory, but, by the next page, while still discussing

memory, he leaves time behind in preference of space.

His book ends in another move: the supersession of place by time in liturgical

contexts of early Christian pilgrimage routes in Jerusalem. In these routes, temporal

relations determined spatial movements in liturgical activities for Christians in Jerusalem

on Pentecost in late antiquity, and, with the severance of place, the temporality of the

sequence guaranteed its later replications elsewhere in Christian liturgy. These routes in

a particular early Christian liturgy do not follow a spatial logic, but a temporal one.

Liturgies, in fact, usually are invoked in temporality, yet this tendency overlooks the

strong spatial interests in liturgy—even if their “logic” is temporal, their interest is also

spatial as they move from place to place. In Lefebvre’s terms, this might represent the

temporalization of space, but, in any such temporalization, place persists. While the

sequence of this liturgy Smith cites follows a temporal logic, it is one focused on a

sequence of importance of places: “It is through structures of temporality, as ritualized,

that the divisiveness and particularity of space are overcome.”105

While place has dominated Smith’s discussion, the final move is the supersession

of space by time. He does not consider the coordination of space and time, but the

epochal succession of space as limited, divided, and particular and time as transcendent

104
Smith, To Take Place, 25.
105
Smith, To Take Place, 94-5
 53

and harmonious. For Smith, the temple becomes replaced by the Mishnah in Judaism and

the liturgical calendar in Christianity. Jerusalem and its temple become transferred or

transformed in a book and in a calendar, and, therefore, independent of its originally

“arbitrary” place. How ritual relates to place is important, but only half the story. When

and where a ritual occurs (its spatiotemporal environment that shapes it), as well as how

the ritual shapes and reifies how time and place are experienced and understood, become

interactive processes in the interface of ritualization and narrative.

Much as space and time in physics are relative to distributions of energy, mass,

and movement, Catherine Bell speaks of how the body and the spatiotemporal

environment interact through ritualization:

Yet a focus on the acts themselves illuminates a critical circularity to the body’s
interaction with this environment; generating it, it is molded by it in turn. By
virtue of this circularity, space and time are redefined through the physical
movements of bodies projecting organizing schemes on the space-time
environment on the one hand while reabsorbing these schemes as the nature of
reality on the other.106

Although she is highly critical of Geertz, Bell comes close to his formulation of symbols

(as found in ritual) as being models of and models for reality.107 Geertz created this

formulation in the context of his oft-criticized definition of religion.108 I think a case can

106
Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 99; cf. Smith, To Take Place, 27-8.
107
Clifford Geertz, "Religion as a Cultural System," The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic
Books, 1973) 93-4.
108
See especially Talal Asad, Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity
and Islam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993) 27-54. Bell (Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice,
25-29, 50) critiques Geertz for creating a dichotomization between thought and action, not in terms of the
usual belief and ritual or myth and ritual as found in other thinkers—while he does this at times, he also
synthesizes or fuses these in symbols and cultural patterns which are disseminated in ritual, art, religion,
myth, and language—rather he creates a thought-action dichotomy between the observer and the
participant: the participants are the actors while the observers are the thinkers.
 54

be made for salvaging models of/models for.109 This formulation of “models of” and

“models for” generates the possibility for change and transformation. In general,

“models of” tends to reinscribe order, serving a conservative function, while “models for”

tends to provide the possibilities of change, and, in a particular ritual event, may

anticipate change. While Geertz’s original formulation, later appropriations of it, and

adaptations to it focus upon the interface between ritual space-time and regular space-

time, with ritual being models of and models for societal states, statuses, and patterns,

with Bell we can begin to think in terms from performance to performance or with

Bakhtin from text to text. In this case, from the mythic narrative to the Day of

Atonement ritual to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice liturgies to the homily of

Hebrews, each performance relies upon a previous model of its performance, but,

additionally, provides the model for the next performance. Yet shifts in understandings

of these schemas occur over time, providing new representations in texts and rituals.

Bell’s formulation also recalls Hawking when he writes, “when a body moves, or

a force acts, it affects the curvature of space and time—and in turn the structure of space-

time affects the way in which bodies move and forces act.”110 In the Yom Kippur

ceremony, for example, the movement of bodies, which bodies go where and when,

illustrates, or reveals and reifies, the gradient of holiness within the temple and within the

liturgical year—revealing (models of) and creating (models for) sacred space-time. In

Bell’s terms, “ritualization is the strategic manipulation of ‘context’ in the very act of

109
Kevin Schilbrack, “Religion, Models of, and Reality: Are We Through with Geertz?” JAAR 73:2 (June
2005): 429-52; Asad (Genealogies of Religion, 32) claims that the language of modeling opens up
possibilities: “it allows for the possibility of conceptualizing discourses in the process of elaboration,
modification, testing, and so forth.”
110
Hawking, Brief History of Time, 34.
 55

reproducing it.”111 Rather than using “models of” and “models for” “reality,” however,

she eventually settles on the language of “structuring” and the “space-time environment”:

“it [ritualization] temporally structures a space-time environment through a series of

physical movements (using schemes described earlier), thereby producing an arena, by its

molding of the actors, both validates and extends the schemes they are internalizing.”112

This formulation tends toward a conservation of “schemes” or, in my terminology,

“patterns,”113 and does not account for the shift of those patterns or schemes, which Bell

elsewhere articulates as an ongoing feedback loop of actors manipulating the

environment, which also impresses upon the actor:

Strategies, signification, and the experience of meaningfulness are found in the

endless circularity of the references mobilized, during the course of which some
differentiations come to dominate others. Ritual mastery is the ability—not
equally shared, desired, or recognized—to (1) take and remake schemes from the
shared culture that can strategically nuance, privilege, or transform, (2) deploy
them in the formulation of a privileged ritual experience, which in turn (3)
impresses them in a new form upon agents able to deploy them in a variety of
circumstances beyond the circumference of the rite itself.114

While often it is difficult in these theoretical discussions to account for the transference

of patterns across performances, between different ritual occasions, moving from one

performance to another, from a performance to a narrative and vice versa, the last

statement of deploying “in a variety of circumstances beyond the circumference of the

rite itself,” covers a multitude of difficulties. Indeed, as Turner and Geertz have observed

111
Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 100.
112
Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 109-110.
113
“Schemes” and “patterns” are, in my view, interchangeable. Van Gennep’s term, schéma, usually is
translated as “pattern.” Its usage throughout Rites of Passage includes both structure and process,
accounting for static or synchronic views and dynamic, diachronic perspectives.
114
Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 116.
 56

in the language of symbols and cultural patterns, Bell has reformulated in terms of the

ritualization of schemes by an actor in a space-time environment, in which all variables

are relative to one another, interactive with one another, and potentially alterable. This

allows for diachronic shifts in both a conserving and transforming manner—much like

Bakhtin’s observations in the dialogic changes in genre and the chronotope as archaic and

renewed, as looking back to earlier iterations but continually contemporized. In Bell’s

terms, “strategic counterplays” continually reshape “tradition.”

The “circumstances”—the ongoing deployment of the generated symbols, cultural

patterns, or, shared cultural schemes in narrative—are the only windows we have: that is,

the textualization that accompanies ritualization in a particular environment. Texts do

not transparently reflect a rite they describe, prescribe, or accompany. In ritualized

environments, texts may be used and not used in a variety of ways.115 The use of texts, in

fact, may distinguish different types of ritual experts: a differentiation of status and

hierarchy. Bell minimally accounts for textualization, since it is not an inevitable

process. Yet, in limited cases, like ours, where textualization does occur, it is variable

and dynamic: “The dynamic interaction of texts and rites, reading and chanting, the word

fixed and the word preached are practices, not social developments of a fixed nature and

significance. As practices, they continually play off each other to renegotiate tradition,

authority, and the hegemonic order. As practices, they invite and expect the strategic

counterplay.”116 In our case, the only means to access the interactive components of

historical environment, ritualization, and textualization is through the occasional

115
Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 138-9.
116
Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 140.
 57

surviving ancient documents that form one part of this trialogue and through which one

can see the representation of ritualized and historical space-time.117

The tripartite dialogue between textualization, ritualization, and historical

environment, interacting in their respective “space-times,” provides the framework to

approach the genre-jumping symbols of the Sabbath and the sanctuary with their

attendant satellites. The mutual embeddedness of ritualized and textualized space-time

coincides with the compatibility of space-time as discussed by Bakhtin and Bell in

literature and ritualization respectively. While this is not always the case—and due to

Bell’s “situational” principle, no case of ritualization is transhistorical—in our case, we

must account for the ongoing interaction between ritualization, textualization, and

environment; how ritualization is structured by (models of) and structures (models for)

the space-time environment, how ritualization structures and is structured by

117
For the problems of treating ritual performances as texts, see Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 43-54.
Yet this is not the issue of reading performances as texts, but reading texts as performances and as
representing the ritualized environment and reflecting/countering the historical space-time environment.
Almost everyone recognizes that the textualization of ritual practices is not due to some sort of intrinsic
similarity between actions and texts, but in the mode of analysis that privileges hermeneutics, decoding,
and searching for “meaning.” Her objection, whether in literary criticism or anthropology, is that this
depends upon certain faulty assumptions that the text/rite is autonomous and unified within itself and that
its latent meaning is fully accessible or recoverable through “close reading.” Ultimately, because the
textualization of ritual highlights the method of the theorist, it distorts by centralizing the concerns of the
theorist, reflecting the theorist’s mode of discourse rather than really illuminating the ritualization process
itself. Nonetheless, all of the practices considered in this dissertation were already entirely textualized in
antiquity. I do not necessarily read practices as texts, but through texts and texts as performances
themselves. Indeed, if there is a unity between actions and texts, it is that textualization is a process, an
action, a performance itself that interacts with or “structures and is structured by” other performances—
whether other textual or ritual performances—again, narrative (as recounted within a text) ultimately, for
our sakes, cannot be separated from ritualization (also textualized). In fact, the practices themselves, as
they “actually” happened in a particular performance, are irrecoverable. As such, they are not autonomous
from their textualization nor autonomous from their ancient social environment, with which they
continually interacted in the process of ritualization. Yet the pattern of symbols ascribed to them in the
narratives persist in ever-new configurations from text to text: the interaction between ritualization,
textualization, and social environment, therefore, are the crux of this study of the patterns of symbols that
wind themselves into mythic narrative, prophetic literature, liturgical texts, and homilies. As any study of
ancient materials, this study also recognizes that much of the “meaning” of these practices, even the
prescriptions and interpretations of them, are not fully recoverable, usually opaque, and that any secure
“meaning” will have to remain deferred from text to text.
 58

textualization, and how textualization itself reinscribes, represents, interprets, and,

thereby, transforms the space-time environment and its interaction with ritualization.

This last component recalls the Bakhtinian perspective, in which the chronotope

intersects the space-time environment and the representation of space-time in a text. In

Bakhtin’s terms, it is a dialogue between all genres and texts and their chronotopic

representations with all others in diachronic and synchronic perspective. In this case, the

sacred space-time as found in ritualized ceremonies and liturgies, such as the Sabbath, the

Day of Atonement, etc., become prescribed, represented, and reconfigured in an explicit

way in the priestly sources, prophets, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, and Hebrews,

bringing together the main spatial-temporal components of such ritualized

performances—the Sabbath and the sanctuary—into interrelationships with one another.

Considering these texts’ and rituals’ historical environment, these textualized

chronotopes often reflected and countered the prolonged destructive forces in antiquity,

birthing new formulations of sacred space-time. Whether the Babylonian destruction of

the first temple and exile in the sixth century BCE, which had an effect on Ezekiel and

the mythic patterns that bring together the Tabernacle and the Sabbath in Moses’ vision

on Sinai in the Priestly Source; the separation of a priestly group from the temple itself in

the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (second century BCE to first

century CE); or the rise of Jesus-followers, the destruction of Herod’s temple in the first

century CE and display of the temple implements in Rome for Hebrews; each occasion

involves disruption of the status quo and creative attempts to recombine traditional

symbols of the Sabbath and the sanctuary into ever-new relationships starting with being

temporal and spatial expressions of God’s holiness in the Pentateuch and Ezekiel. The
 59

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Hebrews, subsequently, reflected upon these earlier

iterations, transforming them into heavenly realities, making holy space-time into

heavenly space-time, and, keeping with the revelatory aspect of sacred space-time in the

Sabbath/sanctuary interrelationship, trying to recapture, reenact, see, and enter what

Moses saw on Sinai. The interface of ritualization and textualization brought configured

sacred space-time in the mythic past, the ritual present (the reenactment of the mythic

past), and the heavenly future (proleptically experienced through ritual performance).

This tripartite interaction (ritualization, textualization, and historical context)

accounts for ongoing reconfiguration of the pattern of symbols that wind their way

through various genres and ritualized performances, as the narratives embed performance

and vice versa, inextricably fusing them. The ongoing process that occasionally finds its

way into texts continually reproduces and reinterprets “tradition.”118 In our case, we may

see a “strategic counterplay” of a textualization alongside ritualization in the

transformation and transference of the reenactment of Moses entering the cloud on Sinai

from the central ritual of Yom Kippur to the weekly liturgies of the Songs of the Sabbath

Sacrifice, again reconfigured by the homilist in the Epistle to the Hebrews, who explicitly

deploys a “strategic counterplay” against the Yom Kippur ceremony with Jesus’ actions

in the heavenly temple, all of which reconfigure the interrelationship between sacred time

and sacred space, between the Sabbath and the sanctuary.

118
Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 118-24.
 60

Excursus: Restorative Versus Liminal Space-time

The dynamics of a central ritual event can be exposed by reading against the grain

of liminal space-time. Liminality became an important theoretical lens to interpret “rites

of passage.” It was initially laid out by Arnold van Gennep, who placed it as the middle

of three stages of initiation: separation, margin / threshold (limen), and incorporation /

aggregation.119 Sustained reflection upon the limen, or liminality, was subsequently

undertaken by Victor Turner.120 By reading against Turner’s discussion of liminality, we

can expose the dynamics of central rituals, such as the Day of Atonement and the

Sabbath, both of which take on the same qualities in the Priestly tradition (Part 1).121

In his earlier work, Turner focuses upon the “state” of the individual undergoing

the ritual initiation in a rite of passage, but he later speaks of liminality being “sacred

space-time” with regard to all non-normal spatial and temporal configurations.122 For

Turner, liminality is “interstructural.” It leaves one in the interstices of societal patterns.

One’s status is ambiguous, characterized by no longer and not yet—no longer a child, not

yet an adult, etc. These interstices collapse social distinctions, loosen the individual or

group from any fixed point in society. This ambiguity is a realm that contains “few or

none of the attributes of the past or coming state,”123 but can contain both. In initiation,

119
Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960) 21.
120
Victor Turner, Forest of Symbols, 91-111; idem, From Ritual to Theatre, 20-60; idem, The Ritual
Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction, 1969) 94-203.
121
One should note that van Gennep does include major ceremonies that accompany changes in month,
season, and especially the new year in his scheme, since they are transitional states for the entire
community (Rites of Passage, ix, 3-4, 178-88)
122
Turner, From Ritual to Theatre, 24-7.
123
Forest of Symbols, 94.
 61

one dies to one’s previous state and is reborn in a new one, and while one is in between

these, one’s status can take on the symbolism of both death and birth. Whatever one’s

sex, one receives both female and male imagery. In this ambiguity, lack of distinction,

the interstitial realm and beings become “invisible.” Liminality is paradox and

ambiguity. In this state, one is polluting and unclean.124 In Mary Douglas’s terms, the

liminal is “dirt.”125 Being interstitial and invisible, this realm is a sacred space-time of

transformation, becoming rather than being, a realm of potentiality to the point of ludic

(and subversive) creativity, providing the space-time in which new recombinations of

traditional symbols can merge and collide, in turn providing germs for new cultural

models and symbols that can be incorporated in normal space-time.126 In keeping with

paradox, by dissolving distinctions, liminality more clearly exposes societal structures.

The Day of Atonement ceremony, however, is central rather than liminal. Like

liminality, it involves a transformation, but the whole purpose is to remove impurity.

Instead of creative it is restorative; instead of polluting it is sanctifying.127 The ritual

ceremony exposes the gradient of holiness of place, time, and people most clearly in that

this is the only and most holy time (Day of Atonement, a Sabbath) that the most holy

person (the high priest) can go into the most holy place (Holy of Holies in the sanctuary,

whether the Tabernacle or the temple, or the heavenly counterpart). Instead of exposing

124
This is emphasized more in Forest of Symbols, but completely drops out in From Ritual to Theatre,
perhaps because the emphasis of liminal time-space gets transformed into a post-industrial “liminoid” that
emphasizes different qualities.
125
See Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger.
126
Turner strongly emphasizes the creative, ludic, and potentially subversive aspects of the liminal and its
cousin, the liminoid, in From Ritual to Theatre, 20-60.
127
Cf. van Gennep, Rites of Passage, viii.
 62

by dissolution, this exposure occurs in the integration and restoration of hierarchy

(literally, in the sense of the differentiated rule of holiness). In the limen, status is

dissolved; in these ceremonies and texts, differentiated status is emphasized.128

This exposure, moreover, is revelatory. If interstitial status, space, and time

create ambiguity and invisibility, the Day of Atonement ritual reveals distinctions and

holiness with clarity, but one must emphasize it is a revelation of God’s holiness. In this

exposure, the ritual reveals, evokes, accesses, and/or maintains God’s holy or heavenly

presence. Nonetheless, ancient mystery religions also introduced an initiate to the sacra,

the sacred things or images, in which one had a vision of the deity or aspects of the deity,

learning the secret lore. In this way, the different liminal and restorative rituals meet, and

in this limited sense liminality and its opposite can ultimately have the same effects.

Nonetheless, the similarity exposes the difference: the most holy things, in fact, are

concealed in the Day of Atonement ritual even as revelation occurs through the smoke

that reenacts the cloud Moses entered on Sinai and received his revelation. The Sabbath

liturgies in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice are also ultimately revelatory, allowing one

to experience heavenly realities expressed in terms of holy time (Sabbath) and holy space

(heavenly sanctuary), and, as I will argue, too reenact Moses’ vision of the “pattern” of

the sanctuary on Sinai. Yet, ultimately, the revelation of sacra in these rituals reinforces

the holiness gradient of Priestly distinctions rather than collapsing it.

Both liminality and its opposite, therefore, represent different forms of non-

normal or sacred space-time. In liminality, space and time relax, they are “out of time”

128
Relying upon Durkheim, J.Z. Smith (To Take Place, 45) makes a similar observation with regard to the
construction of place in ritual: “…that place is not best conceived as a particular location with an
idiosyncratic physiognomy or as a uniquely individualistic node of sentiment, but rather as a social position
within a hierarchical system.”
 63

or, “beyond or outside the time which measures secular processes and routines.”129

While sacred space-time in the Sabbath/sanctuary alignment also are, by their holiness or

heavenliness, distinct from secular space-time, in liminality space and time lose their

qualities in their ambiguity and interstitial status. By contrast, the meeting of the Sabbath

and the sanctuary in Day of Atonement ceremony, in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,

and Hebrews amount to an intensification of space and time in their heightened holiness.

In a sense, just as Turner claims that ritual settings symbolically condense social

interrelationships,130 the ritual event also condenses social constructions of space-time,

revealing their organizations all-the-more clearly. Yet in this central intensification, holy

space and holy time also begin to blur into one another or participate in each other’s

qualities as they participate in a common quality of holiness / heavenliness.

As such, liminality, at least as represented in “rites of passage,” and its opposite

often acquire some of the same qualities.131 Nonetheless, differences arise in distinctions

129
Turner, From Ritual to Theatre, 24.
130
Turner (Forest of Symbols, 285) further speaks of ritual as the epitome of a sector of culture.
131
I am willing alternatively to suggest that these represent two types of liminal time-space. If we restrict
liminal to “separated out” or being distinct from normal space-time. In fact, Turner seems to categorize all
ritual into the three steps demarcated by van Gennep, suggesting that all rituals have a form of “processual
passage.” In this case, the liminal would exist in all rituals, and would constitute the bulk of the “ritual
process” itself. The difference, then, would lie upon the distinction between rites that represent a change in
status (such as an initiation ritual) and calendrical or centrally organized, regularly occurring, seasonal rites
performed by an entire society. Both van Gennep and Turner distinguish between these two types of rites
as two forms of “rites of passage,” but Turner primarily expounds his theories of liminality from the former
(as he also notes that van Gennep does), and so does not systematically develop a clear distinction between
these two forms of sacred space-time in ritual settings; see From Ritual to Theatre, 24-5. Or, at least, when
he does, he emphasizes seasonal festivals and carnival. In that sense, the difference between the two types
of liminal rites, for Turner, is that initiatory passage rites tend to put people down, while seasonal rites set
people up: “initiations humble people before permanently elevating them, while some seasonal rites
(whose residues are carnivals and festivals) elevate those of low status transiently before returning them to
their permanent humbleness” (From Ritual to Theatre, 25). This definitely is the case with seasonal
Bacchic rites, Saturnalia, and, in Jewish tradition, perhaps Purim, which attains some carnivalesque
qualities, but this does not seem to be the case with the sacred space-time discussed here; thus, I maintain
the language of reading against liminality, or seeing a sacred space-time that is separated like liminality,
but still not the same as liminality. Indeed, this seems to be the case, when Turner writes, “to my mind it is
 64

versus flattening and between disordering / dissolution and (re)ordering. It is noteworthy,

in this respect, that holiness in the Priestly tradition is marked by separation, much like

liminality, except that liminality pollutes and these rituals purify or purge. Liminality

dissolves, and these rituals restore, reveal, and, ultimately, “perfect” or make whole.

Liminality may blur space and time by being “outside” of them, in a way, while these

rituals blur space and time (or have the potential to do so) by centralizing and

intensifying them. In this case, a ritual ceremony, procedure, or performance is a holy

event that coordinates, configures, and organizes holy / heavenly space and holy /

heavenly time, perspicaciously exposing (or revealing) holy / heavenly space-time.

The Plan of this Study

Having provided a tripartite framework of ritualization, textualization, and

environment, in which each new articulation relies upon and transforms earlier ones, the

stage is set to investigate the ongoing reconfigurations of the Sabbath-sanctuary space-

time from holiness to heavenliness. This study is organized in three major parts focusing

on the Hebrew Bible, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, and the Epistle to the Hebrews

respectively. While the major interest in this study is on how the later sources

transformed the Hebrew Bible material, this earlier material is integral since it established

the basic categories and patterns the later works relied upon and adapted to their changing

circumstances. The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews

organized the Sabbath and the sanctuary by making the Sabbath the temporal access to

the heavenly sanctuary and making both the Sabbath and the sanctuary equivalent to one

the analysis of culture into factors and their free or ‘ludic’ recombination in any and every possible pattern,
however weird, that is of the essence of liminality, liminality par excellence” (From Ritual to Theatre, 28).
 65

another as the temporal and spatial expressions of God’s heavenliness. When aligned

they indicate access to God’s Presence. They did this by relying upon and transforming

the configuration of sacred space and sacred time established by the Priestly writers

active around the Babylonian Exile, including Ezekiel, the Priestly Source, and the

Holiness School. Within these changing configurations, two aspects established by the

Hebrew Bible sources and reinterpreted by the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the

Epistle to the Hebrews will be emphasized throughout: the particular sacred equivalence

between the Sabbath and the sanctuary and the larger cosmogonic scheme in which this

relationship appears in the three major parts of this study.

Part 1 will focus on the sources in the Hebrew Bible: the Priestly sources of the

Pentateuch, the Holiness School, Ezekiel, and, briefly, Isaiah. These works initiate the

interrelationship between the Sabbath and the Sanctuary that will be relied upon by the

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews. I take my initial cue from

Moshe Weinfeld,132 who discusses how the Sabbath and the Tabernacle are interrelated

following the ancient Near Eastern cosmogonic nexus of creation, temple-building,

enthronement, and resting, as can be seen in the Baal Epic or even more clearly in the

Enuma Elish.133 The Hebrew priestly tradents, through the creation account and Moses’

132
Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord,” 501-512
133
The overall pattern of defeating the chaotic waters and then resting in a temple actually occurs twice in
this epic. The first example is quite short. In tablet 1, Ea slays the male waters, Apsu, and, interestingly
enough, builds his “dwelling” on top of Apsu, naming the dwelling itself Apsu, and then finds very quiet
rest within this dwelling. This very clear, epigrammatic, pattern of defeating the chaotic waters, building a
dwelling, and finding rest, will be expanded and elaborated upon in Marduk’s battle with the female waters,
Tiamat—it is this latter version that bears so many similarities with the Priestly account of creation (Gen.
1:1-2:3). In this version, Marduk is the only god strong enough to battle Tiamat—even Ea, who defeated
Apsu, cannot defeat her. Marduk not only defeats her, by divides her in half, placing half of her in the sky
and leaving half of her below. He then creates divisions of time with the stars, moon, and sun. He makes
rivers, mountains, the sky, and the earth. For his efforts, Marduk becomes the king of the gods, and all the
gods do obeisance to him. He then makes a “house” in Babylon that will be the “center of religion” and a
“resting-place” for all the gods when they visit Marduk (Tablet 5). Rest, itself, plays a far more important
 66

vision of the “pattern” of the Tabernacle, brought their Israelite traditions into dialogue

with these ancient Near Eastern narratives, particularly in their Babylonian forms,

transforming both in the process. They transformed the “rest” of the narrative in the

Sabbath and elevated the holiness of the Sabbath to the sanctity of the sanctuary,

generating a heightened spatiotemporal interplay of holiness. Becoming the primary dual

expressions of God’s holiness in time and space (particularly in the Holiness Code and

Ezekiel), their observance becomes a metonym of keeping the covenant; their conjoined

profanation, a symbol for covenantal abrogation in which the punishment is death or

exile. This terminology of the reverence for the sanctuary and the Sabbath and

punishment for profanation becomes further applied to the land and the land’s Sabbath, as

well as the Day of Atonement ceremony (all becoming “Sabbaths”) as the

interrelationship between sacred space and sacred time spreads.

Building upon this foundation, Part 2 moves to the late Second Temple Period to

the liturgical Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Although shifting in genre, these liturgies

bring the relationships established in the Pentateuch and Ezekiel that bring the Sabbath

and the sanctuary together into dialogue with their current religious environment, which

increasingly set God’s sanctuary in heaven, making the earthly temple a reflection or

shadow of it. These liturgies provide, in fact, the most extensive example of this view.

In a heightened interplay of textualization and ritualization, the Sabbath becomes the

liturgically most auspicious sacred time to access the heavenly Tabernacle. Discussing

role throughout the epic. The reason that humans are eventually created is so that they can do the work that
gods previously did, and the gods can rest in leisure (Tablet 6; cf. Atrahasis). Marduk’s shrine in Babylon,
moreover, is repeatedly called a place of rest and the gods repeatedly request to rest there—again over or in
front of Apsu. Moreover, the dwellings and, thus, resting-places, for the gods Anu, Ellil, and Ea are built in
Babylon as well (although, according to the story, Ea’s was already there). In the newly built Esagila in
Babylon, the center of religion, the gods proclaim Marduk king and praise him by his fifty names.
 67

the specific terminology of the “pattern” of the Tabernacle and the “pattern” of the

throne-chariot alongside the timing the thirteen weeks of liturgies to climax around

Shavuot, I argue that the practitioners reenact Moses’ and Ezekiel’s visions of the

Tabernacle and the throne. When doing so, they align multiple biblical theophanies as a

singular heavenly reality, as they reconfigure the overall pattern of creation, sanctuary,

rest, and enthronement, making the Sabbath the gateway to the other elements.

In turn, Part 3 will focus on the Epistle to the Hebrews, the most extensive

discussion of the heavenly sanctuary in early Christian literature. This homily also builds

upon the broad pattern emulated in the Pentateuch, giving extensive treatment to each

element of creation, Sabbath rest, enthronement, and the sanctuary, treating each facet

with literary and exegetical skill and embedding it within its larger architectonic thematic

arrangement (approximately, creation, enthronement, Sabbath rest, priesthood,

Tabernacle, heavenly homeland / Jerusalem), providing the clearest and most systematic

example of this pattern. Concurrently, the work develops a heightened spatiotemporal

interplay as Sabbath rest gains territorial associations with the “heavenly homeland” and

the sanctuary acquires temporal significance, symbolizing the current age and the age to

come. Like the Sabbath liturgies, Hebrews situates this relationship in the heavenly

realm with the Sabbath associated with the heavenly homeland, the heavenly throne, and

heaven itself being the “Tabernacle.” Nonetheless, there are significant transformations

in this pattern due to Jesus’ Christological role as an agent in creation, as enthroned next

to God, as performing an ultimate sacrifice in the heavenly holy of holies, acting as both

sacrificial victim and high priest, and as the one by whom and in imitation of whom his
 68

followers can enter the Sabbath rest, approach the throne, draw near to God, and enter the

sanctuary—entering the heavenly reality Moses saw.

The conclusion will bring together the overarching themes involved in tracing the

ongoing morphology of the intersections of the Sabbath and the sanctuary from the

Hebrew Bible to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews, as

each work configures its predecessors in dialogue with its own ritualized and historical

context. Attention will be given to attendant themes that relate to the Sabbath and the

sanctuary within the broader pattern of creation, enthronement, rest, and the sanctuary.

Within this, particular attention will be given to the role of divine imitation as it shifts

from imitating God to angels and to Christ, and to the preference for Mosaic imagery,

especially the continued interest in interpreting the “pattern of the Tabernacle” Moses

saw. These sections will consider how these concerns align with the broader changes in

cosmology and a group’s relationship with the past as they reenact Moses’ vision

(Leviticus 16), evoke what Moses saw but in the heavenly realm (Songs of the Sabbath

Sacrifice), and enjoin others to enter what Moses saw (Hebrews).

Additionally, the conclusion will address the specific relationship between works.

While both the Sabbath liturgies and Hebrews rely upon the Hebrew Bible, the

conclusion will consider their possible relationship to one another. While the differences

in style, purpose, genre, and conceptualization of the relationship between the Sabbath

and the sanctuary and the broader mythic patterns are stark between the Songs of the

Sabbath Sacrifice and Hebrews, the two works share some rare traits: of the surviving

documents from antiquity, they are the first and second works to recombine the Sabbath

and the sanctuary after the Hebrew Bible; they both bring them together by placing them
 69

in the heavenly realm, instead of in the purely eschatological or earthly future (cf. 2

Baruch and 4 Ezra); they are the first and second works to portray a heavenly Tabernacle

(rather than a heavenly temple); they both do so by reflecting upon the “pattern” of the

Tabernacle that Moses saw; and they both potentially place Melchizedekian figure within

the heavenly Tabernacle. Finally, hopefully this study will prompt fruitful further

discussions on the relationship between the Sabbath and sanctuary in other works (e.g., in

early Christian materials) and more generally assist in investigating the manifold ways

sacred space and sacred time intersect in a particular religious group.

 70

Introduction to Part 1: The Priestly Foundations of the Sanctuary/Sabbath

Correlation

The Priestly intersections of sacred space and sacred time originate in Ezekiel and

the Pentateuch. These sacred spatiotemporal intersections will become integral to

understanding the role of the Sabbath and the sanctuary in the Songs of the Sabbath

Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews, since both of those works developed their

understanding of the Sabbath and the sanctuary by reflecting on these earlier priestly

sources. While there are numerous details that will prove relevant for these later works,

the Songs and Hebrews pick up on three basic elements discussed in this section: the

priestly tradition makes the Sabbath and the sanctuary equivalent in holiness, the

placement of this equivalency within a broader ancient Near Eastern scheme of creation,

sanctuary-building, rest, and enthronement, and their ritual coordination. Like in these

priestly traditions, the Songs and Hebrews will align the Sabbath and the sanctuary as

equivalent in holiness so that the Sabbath can become the temporal access to the

sanctuary’s holiness when that holiness is otherwise inaccessible.

Several scholars have noted the Priestly entwinement of the Sabbath and the

sanctuary,1 but Moshe Weinfeld provides the most useful model for this study. He lays

1
For example, Frank Moore Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of Religion of
Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973) 270, 295) briefly alludes to the interrelation between
the Sabbath, the Mosaic Covenant, and the Priestly cult with the Tabernacle: “The Mosaic covenant had as
its sign the Sabbath, a sign already hidden in creation but revealed only at Sinai, and as its law the cultic
prescriptions of the Tabernacle cult and the entire ‘Holiness code.’” The Sabbath and the Tabernacle come
together as expressions of the Mosaic covenant: the Sabbath as its sign and the Tabernacle as its law. The
Sabbath is both part of the order of creation and the sign of the covenant at Sinai. Notably, in Menahem
 71

out the broader relationship between creation, Sabbath, temple, and enthronement in the

Pentateuch, comparing the biblical narratives with Mesopotamian and Canaanite creation

stories, in which a primary god (e.g., Baal or Marduk) creates the world by conquering

chaotic waters, and subsequently receives a temple to be enthroned and rest within it.2

Scholars have long been aware of connections between creation and temple in the

Bible in connection with ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies, but Weinfeld most clearly

highlights the role of rest and Sabbath in those narratives and the Bible. The instructions

for building the Tabernacle (Exod. 25-31) culminate in the Sabbath (Ex. 31:12-17) and

literarily reflect the Sabbath-focused creation narrative in Genesis 1:1-2:3 with six

commands of creating the world/Tabernacle and a seventh to cease or rest on the

Sabbath. Furthermore, the seven commands to build the sanctuary in Exodus 40 begin

with the Sabbath. These Sabbath passages indicate the editorial hand of the Holiness

School, but, while secondary to the Priestly Tabernacle, this layer of tradition is the one

Haran’s otherwise thorough opus, Temples and Temple Service, he never mentions the connection between
the Tabernacle and the Sabbath in his three chapters dedicated to the Tabernacle or in his nine references to
the Sabbath, nor the relationship between Creation and the Tabernacle.
2
Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord,” 501-512; Kramer (“The Temple in
Sumerian Literature,” 1-16) discusses the nexus of creation, rest, the importance of the seventh day for the
installation (enthronement) of the deity, and temple in terms of myths connected to four Sumerian temples.
Weinfeld argues that the “P” creation story was liturgical, using seven progressive points: 1) God’s
dwelling in his temple is considered “rest,” parallel to the concept of the sanctuary in the ancient Near East,
and to the seventh day’s rest in Genesis, 2) the completion of the Tabernacle is parallel to the completion of
the universe in Genesis, 3) the seventh day as the day of completion appears both in the Tabernacle and the
creation accounts, 4) Creation and Temple building in the ancient Near East are tied to enthronement, 5)
Creation and Enthronement are interrelated, 6) Sabbath and enthronement are interrelated in Jewish
liturgy, and, therefore, 7) the Sitz im Leben of Gen. 1:1-2:3 can be found in Jewish liturgy. Green
(“Sabbath as Temple,” 287-305) more broadly traces the history of the relationship between Sabbath and
Temple throughout Jewish history from the Bible through the Mishnot into medieval and modern sources
of Kabbalah and Hasidism. The article looks at the relationship between Sabbath and temple in terms of
replacement after the destruction of the second temple, shifting from sacred space to sacred time: “the
Sabbath gradually supplanted the Temple as the central unifying religious symbol of the Jewish people.
This shift took place originally in the context of sectarian strife in the Second Temple period, and was
ultimately confirmed by the destruction of the Temple” (293, emphasis original). Although I disagree with
his thesis, Green shows many insights in a larger relationship between Sabbath and temple.
 72

that stitches the accounts together, intricately interlacing creation, Sabbath, and the

Tabernacle in the overall framework of the Pentateuch.

The Priestly tradents placed this ancient Near Eastern cosmogonic pattern in

dialogue with pre-existing traditions, transforming both in the process: creation in

Genesis emulates and transforms the divine combat scene from the Enuma Elish,

“demythologizing” it; the Tent of Meeting above which God intermittently met Moses

outside the camp becomes the Tabernacle, the permanent “Dwelling Place” of God’s

cloud-like Glory, with many of the characteristics of Solomon’s temple; the Ark of the

covenant, previously a box with important talismans, becomes covered with the mercy-

seat of the Cherubim, God’s throne; and the “rest” within the sanctuary from the ancient

Near Eastern narrative pattern becomes the Sabbath, creating a new dynamic interplay

between space and time not found in other variants of the pattern (e.g., Psalm 132).

The inclusion of the Sabbath in a direct relationship with the sanctuary elevates its

status: the Sabbath and the sanctuary become in the Priestly tradition, particularly in

Ezekiel and the Holiness School, qualitatively equivalent in holiness, the Sabbath

expressing God’s holiness in time; the sanctuary, in space.3 This is demonstrated through

the ability of one to “profane” them, and the severe punishments of ‫ כרת‬and death for

their profanation.4 If the Holiness School organized the Sabbath-focused passages, then

this is the source that elevated the status of the Sabbath and organized the previously

3
Israel Knohl (The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1995) 16, 63-8) discusses the Sabbath passages (Exod. 31:12-17; 35:1-3; cf. Exod. 24:12-
16) interwoven into the Tabernacle account to demonstrate how Holiness School redacted the Priestly
Torah. The terminology of “six days…on the seventh” (Exod. 24:16; 31:15; 35:2), “my Sabbaths,” and
“throughout your generations,” showing the redactional hand of HS (66-7).
4
According to Knohl, the Holiness School (HS) added the Sabbath to the Priestly list of festivals, showing
that the Sabbath is no less important than any other holiday of the year.
 73

existing Priestly materials in dialogue with the ancient Near Eastern patterns of creation,

rest, enthronement, and sanctuary in the narrative patterns discussed by Weinfeld.5

While HS stresses the importance of Sabbath observance, details forbidden labor,

and threatens those who desecrate it with stringent punishments (karet, or being cut off

from the people), previous documents do not prohibit labor on the Sabbath, much less lay

out punishments.6 The HS raises the holiness of the Sabbath to that of the sanctuary by

using ‫ חלל‬to designate the violation of the both sanctity of the Sabbath and the sanctuary

(Exod. 31:14; Lev. 21:12, 23).7 While before it was not listed as a holy day, HS made it a

day of “proclaimed holiness” (Lev 23:3). Finally, the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant

and “it is a sign of the holiness with which the Lord sanctified Israel (Exod 31:13).”8 In

short, the Sabbath and the sanctuary became qualitatively equivalent in holiness as the

Holiness School elevated the day to the sanctity of the sanctuary.9 This holiness, in turn,

was imitated by the Israelites, who were called to be holy as God is holy. They did this

by observing the commandments (especially Leviticus 19), by observing the Sabbath, and

by building and venerating the sanctuary. By building the sanctuary and then resting on

the Sabbath, they imitated God creating the heavens and the earth and then resting.10

5
Knohl assigns all Sabbath passages to HS except Gen. 2:1-3 and Num. 28:9-10. Alan Cooper and Bernard
R. Goldstein ("The Development of the Priestly Calendars (I): The Daily Sacrifice and the Sabbath,"
HUCA 74 (2003) 13-14) see the hand of HS in these passages as well
6
Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 18-9.
7
Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 196.
8
Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 17.
9
Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 196.
10
Jacob Milgrom accepts Knohl’s thesis of the relationship between PT and HS, arguing that the Sabbath
increased in importance for seventh-century BCE prophets, who used its observance to prevent assimilation
under King Manasseh (Zephaniah 1; Jer. 17:19-27), and that it was key to Israel’s survival in the
Babylonian exile (see Lev. 23:3). He writes, commenting on Lev. 19:30: “The Sabbath is indispensable to
 74

This entwinement of the Sabbath and the sanctuary extends to the land’s Sabbath.

In this case, the Holiness School expands the holiness of the sanctuary to the land,

demonstrated through one’s ability to “defile” them. As the land acquires the holiness

characteristics of the sanctuary, including the interrelationship between impurity and

holiness, it concomitantly requires the Sabbatical, intensifying the holiness of the

Sabbatical year and the punishments for not keeping it: exile and destruction—‫ כרת‬en

masse.11 The land’s Sabbath acquires the characteristics of the Sabbath itself. Like the

Sabbath, it is actually called a Sabbath, a Sabbath of complete rest (‫)שבת שבתון‬, which is

an intensifier, and the result for not keeping it is exile.

Finally, ritual integrally coordinates sacred space and sacred time. Weinfeld

already liturgically linked the nexus of creation, temple construction, enthronement, and

Sabbath, but this can be demonstrated most clearly with the Day of Atonement, the ritual

event par excellence. It is set in the most holy place while accruing all of the same

characteristics as the Sabbath in the Priestly sources, especially the Holiness School. The

Day of Atonement, like the Sabbath and the land’s Sabbath in the Priestly tradition, is

‫( שבת שבתון‬Sabbath of complete rest), and comes with severe punishments for those who

achieving holiness, for by observing it Israel sanctifies it, as expressly commanded in the Decalogue (Exod
20:8; Deut 5:12), and by violating it, Israel desecrates it (Ezek 20:16, 21, 24; 22:8). Reverence for the
sanctuary adds a new aspect of holiness in this chapter, indicating that holiness has both a spatial and a
temporal dimension” (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics (A Continental Commentary;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004) 243). This commentary is a condensed form of his three-volume
commentary on Leviticus for Anchor Bible (AB 3, 3A, 3B) (New York: Doubleday, 1991, 2000, 2001).
Milgrom notes the priority given to the Sabbath in this verse combined with its interlacing with the
construction of the Tabernacle, but explains both in terms of the Rabbinic concept that the Sabbath may not
be violated even for the building of the sanctuary (Sifra, Qedoshim 7:7). See also Milgrom, Leviticus, 317.
11
The Land’s Sabbath already existed in non-Priestly traditions (e.g. Exod. 23:10-11). In the non-Priestly
(and non Deuteronomic) traditions, the seventh-year “rest” is never called a “Sabbath.” Moreover, even the
rest on the seventh day is not called a “Sabbath” (Exod. 23:12-13). Nor is it called “holy” here. Whereas
in the Deuteronomic tradition, it is a “Sabbath” and “holy” (Deut. 5:12-15), although Cooper and Goldstein
(“Development of the Priestly Calendars (I),” 13) view this passage as a priestly incursion.
 75

do not keep it. It is the one time when the high priest can enter the Holy of Holies;

therefore, it is the ritual through which the most holy space meets the most holy time.12

While the individual components of the Priestly Source and the Holiness School

may be very old, the overall pattern likely organized by the Holiness School best fits the

exilic or post-exilic situation.13 While Babylon controlled the region previous to the

exile, and, therefore, contact with them and other people who held these conceptions

were available, the Babylonian Exile and thereafter provides the most conspicuous time

for appropriation and transformation of tradition in dialogue with Babylonian narratives

and rituals (the Enuma Elish and the akitu, respectively). Indeed, the similarities between

Yom Kippur and the akitu’s kuppuru ritual likely indicate eyewitness emulation—those

who edited the Yom Kippur ritual in Leviticus 16 and Leviticus 23 most likely saw the

kuppuru performed during the Babylonian New Year.14 Retrospective discussions of

expulsion from the land due to failure to observe the Sabbath and the land’s Sabbath

found in the Holiness School, Ezekiel, and Chronicles all point to an exilic and post-

exilic situation. It is at this time that we find a heightened concern of the “profanation”

of the sanctuary and the Sabbath, whereas it only rarely occurs in earlier sources.

12
This ritual additionally reflects Moses’ encounter with God’s Glory on Sinai in the Priestly account.
Indeed, the Tabernacle can be seen as a portable Sinai.
13
In this way, this study disagrees with Knohl (Sanctuary of Silence, 199-224) who places HS during the
period of Ahaz and Hezekiah as an eventual response to the Assyrian invasion and conquering of the
Northern Kingdom in the eighth-century BCE, making the Priestly materials editing by HS even earlier
with Hezekiah centralizing the cult in according to HS. He places these materials as early as Solomon in
the tenth-century BCE. For a more likely dating of HS to the post-exilic period, see Cooper and Goldstein,
“Development of Priestly Calendars (I),” 5; for a more extensive discussion, see Kenton L. Sparks, "Enûma
Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism," JBL 126.4 (2007): 625-48.
14
For an account of the ceremony, see ANET 331-4; for arguments of exilic observation, see Sparks,
"Enûma Elish and Priestly Mimesis," 634-5, 645-6.
 76

In the wake of the destruction of the first temple, speculation on the loss of the

land and temple occurred in several circles, and, in the priestly circles began to be

explained through the profanation and defilement of the Sabbath and the sanctuary, the

land’s Sabbath and the land. This explanation emerged concurrently with heightened

speculation on and the transformation of the mobile shrine, in which God’s abiding

presence is tied to no particular place, and whose holiness can be experienced by anyone

within the covenant anywhere every Sabbath. While other elements found in this

discussion may derive from earlier times, the dynamic dialogue between the framework

of the cosmogonic pattern and earlier elements that created a new dynamic

interrelationships between the Sabbath and the sanctuary, creating priestly sacred

spacetime, finds its most likely context in sixth-century BCE Babylonia and thereafter.

These priestly foundations in the Pentateuch and Ezekiel formulated in the fraught

state of exile provided fertile incubation for the intricately drawn interrelationship

between the Sabbath and the sanctuary that will reemerge in the Songs of the Sabbath

Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

 77

Chapter 2: Sabbath and Temple Construction: The Ancient Near Eastern Nexus

That biblical books participate in broader ancient Near Eastern perspectives is

beyond dispute. In fact, it is redundant, since ancient Israel was an ancient Near Eastern

society. In that sense, particular ancient Near Eastern actors from Judah reflected,

adapted, and participated in dialogues with other local ancient Near Eastern societies who

also adjusted the narratives they encountered to their local circumstances. Nearly every

aspect of the Hebrew Bible has precedent or parallel with some aspect of Egyptian,

Canaanite, or Mesopotamian cultures; thus, what makes any iteration unique is its

particular configuration. Thus the question is not whether but how these priestly tradents

engaged, borrowed, emulated, resisted, and altered the variant stories and practices they

encountered to their own local traditions and circumstances.

When the Priestly writers brought together the Sabbath and the Tabernacle, they

participated in a broader ancient Near Eastern narrative of creation, rest, enthronement,

and temple-construction found in the Ugaritic Baal Epic and in the Babylonian Enuma

Elish.1 The Priestly formers of the Pentateuch brought this pattern in dialogue with

traditional non-priestly materials, transforming both in the process. They utilized their

own preexisting traditions of God’s rest (the Sabbath) and the sanctuary (combining

1
Victor Hurowitz (I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of
Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSS 115; Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) 93-4)
notes that this mythic narrative pattern is related to a historiographic motif in which the king victorious in
battle returns to build a palace for himself. The mythic pattern that connects creation and temple building
can also be found in another Babylonian creation story, “When Anu Built the Heavens,” and in Egyptian
sources (ANET, 3)
 78

elements of Solomon’s temple and the Tent of Meeting) and brought them in dialogue

with this pattern, a conjoining that resulted in or reflected a much higher regard and

sanctity for the Sabbath than existed in other ancient non-priestly trends.

Emulating and Transforming the Ancient Near Eastern Narrative Pattern

The northern Canaanite Ugaritic Baal Epic consists of six tablets that date to

1400-1350 BCE.2 Its primary theme is the kingship of Baal, attained by defeating,

dismembering, and scattering Prince Yamm, the Sea (2.4.25-31) with the help of the

warrior-goddess Anat (tablets 1-2). After defeating Yamm, he requests a “house” to be

built for him—his palace/temple—through Anat’s assistance (tablets 3-4). Within this

house is his throne, his resting-place.3 The last two tablets depict how Mot (Death)

defeats and eats Baal, how Anat defeats Mot by splitting, winnowing, burning, grinding,

and sowing him, which brings Baal back to life, and how Baal retakes his cosmic throne:

Then B[aa]l [is enthroned] on his royal throne

[On the resting place], the throne of his dominion. (6.5.5-6)

By defeating and dividing the Sea, Baal attains the kingship of the universe, receiving a

“house” (bht, bt) as a dwelling-place (mtb) and a throne (kht) upon which to rest (nht).  
The connection between defeating the Sea, rest, temple-construction, and

enthronement is clearer in the Babylonian creation epic, the Enuma Elish, which was

recited on the fourth day of the Babylonian New Year festival, the akitu, just before the

2
See Mark S. Smith, "The Baal Cycle," Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. Simon B. Parker (SBL Writings
from the Ancient World 9; Scholars Press, 1997) 81-180.
3
Throughout the Baal Cycle, a god’s throne is considered a place of rest (e.g., 7.3.24-5; 12.5.5-6; Smith,
“Baal Cycle,” 89, 160)
 79

temple purgation ceremony, the kuppuru, on the fifth day.4 The tablets of the Enuma

Elish primarily date to the first millennium BCE and were still known in the fifth-sixth

centuries CE, but probably originated in the second millennium BCE. With versions

found in a variety of sites and time periods, the story is remarkably stable.5 Whereas in

the Baal Epic the connection between defeating Prince Yamm and receiving kingship

through a palace/temple and enthronement had some indications of the throne as a resting

place, the Enuma Elish more extensively highlights the importance of “rest.”6

The pattern of defeating the chaotic waters and then resting in a newly built

temple occurs twice. In tablet 1, Ea slays the male waters, Apsu, and builds his

“dwelling” on top of him and then finds quiet rest within this dwelling. This succinct

pattern of defeating the chaotic waters, building a dwelling, and finding rest, is expanded

and elaborated in Marduk’s battle with the female waters, Tiamat—it is this version that

bears similarities with the Priestly creation account (Gen. 1:1-2:3). In this story, Marduk

is the only god strong enough to battle Tiamat—even Ea, who defeated Apsu, cannot

defeat her. Marduk defeats her and divides her in half, placing half of her in the sky and

leaving half below. He then creates divisions of time with the stars, moon, and sun, and

makes rivers, mountains, the sky, and the earth. For his efforts, Marduk becomes the

4
For the ritual context of the text’s recitation, see temple program for the entire akitu in ANET 331-34.
5
For a readable translation, introduction, and notes, see Stephanie Dalley, "The Epic of Creation," Myths
from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, Revised Edition (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000) 227-77. There is a possibility that this variant of the story of a God overcoming the
sea originated among the Western Semitic Amorites with Marduk and his particular temple, Esagila, being
substituted for the Amorite hero and temple.
6
Andreasen (Old Testament Sabbath, 174-82) also discusses rest of the deity or the “divine otiositas” motif
across the Enuma Elish, the Baal Cycle, and the Memphite theology. On the relationship between rest and
temple building more generally, see Hurowitz, I Have Build You an Exalted House, 330-31.
 80

king of the gods. He then makes a “house” in Babylon that will be the “center of

religion” and a “resting-place” for all the gods when they visit Marduk (Tablet 5).

Rest plays a more important role throughout the epic. The reason that humans are

created, for example, is so that they can do the work the gods previously did, and the

gods can rest in leisure (Tablet 6; cf. Atrahasis). Marduk’s shrine in Babylon, moreover,

is repeatedly called a place of rest and the gods repeatedly request to rest there—over or

in front of Apsu. Moreover, the dwellings and, thus, resting-places for the gods Anu,

Enlil, and Ea are built in Babylon as well (although according to the story, Ea’s was

already there). Finally, in the newly built Esagila in Babylon, the center of religion, the

gods proclaim Marduk king and praise him by his fifty names.7

This ancient Near Eastern pattern of creation, temple, enthronement, and rest

found in the Baal Epic and the Enuma Elish makes the temple the place built for the

god’s rest after the work of creation. God’s rest and God’s dwelling place are inextricably

related and both are God’s reward for giving order to chaos. God becomes the enthroned

king for the same reason. God becomes king by defeating the primordial waters, and is

enthroned in his palace/temple, where he rests. God’s kingship is contingent upon his

ability to bring and maintain cosmic order; God’s rest and dwelling are the reward.

Aspects of this pattern can be found throughout biblical literature, a great deal of

which dates to the Babylonian Exile. The first aspect of God defeating watery chaos and

bringing order (the divine combat myth) is prevalent in Judahite/Israelite traditions,

7
In addition, in the Greek Typhoeus-Typhaon myth, a male force of chaos closely identified with Tartarus
(Apollodorus, Bibl. I.4.3.4ff), shows close ties to its counterparts further east, particularly the Hittite story
of Illuyanka. Hesiod’s Theogony 820ff. shows the chaotic Typhoeus defeated by Zeus and thrown into
Tartarus. From Typhoeus come the chaotic winds of the sea, thus becoming an ongoing representative of
chaos, albeit in more controlled form since Zeus. In the Hymn to Apollo 300-375, Typhaon appears to be a
consort of the she-dragon, which the poem identifies with the Pytho, who is then slain by Apollo. In
general, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 112-44.
 81

representing a very ancient understanding of God’s sovereign role in maintaining order in

the universe. In Ps. 77:17-20 the waters writhe and shudder when they see the LORD (cf.

Ps. 114:1-8). Ps. 89:9-10 recounts God’s rule and conquest over the chaotic waters,

stilling the “raging sea,” here called “Rahab” (cf. Ps. 65:7). Is. 51:9 recounts that God

had pierced and cut Rahab, here clearly a serpentine sea monster (‫)תנין‬, to pieces, like

Marduk did to Tiamat. The serpentine monster also appears as the Leviathan, which God

must control or destroy. Ps. 74:14 depicts God crushing the Leviathan. Job 41 presents

the Leviathan as a fierce fire-breathing dragon, which only God can control (cf. Job 3:8).

Is. 27:1 states that God will defeat the sea monster to create and maintain lawful order.8

The motif of the serpentine sea monster becomes the dragon in Revelation, called the

“ancient serpent” and identified with Satan. The dragon is defeated and thrown to the

earth by Michael before being thrown into the Abyss for a thousand years and finally

confined to eternal torture in a lake of burning sulfur (Rev. 12:1-17; 20:1-10). Finally, a

“demythologized” version of this divine combat myth, closely following the Enuma Elish

terminologically, twice appears in the Priestly Source of the Pentateuch discussed below.

Psalm 132 also participates in aspects of this mythic pattern. Like the Enuma

Elish, it equates God’s “dwelling place” (‫ )משכן‬with his “resting place” (‫( )מנוחה‬see esp.

vv. 7-8, 13-14)—both became equivalent terms for the temple David promised to build.

Most pertinent for this study, the Holiness School substitutes the Sabbath for the

general “resting-place” turning the place of rest into a time of rest and thereby creating a

new spatiotemporal interplay between the sanctuary and the Sabbath. This source more

extensively appropriates the overall pattern, and emphasizes the relationship between the

8
Cf. Ps. 104:26, where the Leviathan has merely become another of God’s creatures.
 82

Sabbath and the sanctuary. When the Priestly tradents adapted this pattern to the Hebrew

traditions, they took their preexistent traditions of rest, the Sabbath, highlighting and

exalting the Sabbath, while juxtaposing it to the priestly conception of the Tabernacle, the

‫משכן‬, or God’s “dwelling-place.” This reformulation of the Sabbath and God’s mobile

shrine elevated both of them in connection to God’s Rest (Sabbath) and God’s Dwelling-

Place (Tabernacle). The Tabernacle became where God rested and the Sabbath when

God rested from the work of creation, bringing order to chaos. Applying this ancient

Near Eastern pattern, the Priestly tradents transformed both the mobile shrine and the

Sabbath, heightening the importance and holiness of both.

In the Priestly layers of the Pentateuch organized by the Holiness School, God

defeats, divides, and controls chaotic waters twice. The similarities between the Enuma

Elish and Gen. 1:1-2:3 have been long observed.9 Both begin with a temporal clause—

“when on high” and “in the beginning” or “when god began.” In Gen. 1:1-2:3,

primordial darkness, an abyss, and waters preexist, out of which God orders the world.

In one Marduk defeats the waters of Tiamat and in the other God tames the watery abyss

of tehom (‫)תהום‬. Marduk creates by separating the waters of Tiamat; God creates by

separating the waters into upper and lower waters. Both accounts follow the same order

of creation of heaven and earth, heavenly bodies, and humans. God creates humans in his

own image while Marduk creates humans out of the blood of a slain god. Finally, after

God brings order out of the primordial darkness and waters, on the seventh day, he rests

or ceases (‫)שבת‬, following the typical pattern of receiving rest after creation. Finally, in

addition to creating by dividing, Marduk alone can create by command—speaking it and

9
For full citation of these arguments and a recent articulation of the similarities and differences between
the Enuma Elish and the Pentateuch, see Sparks, "Enûma Elish and Priestly Mimesis," 625-32.
 83

it is. By his speech alone, he creates, destroys, and recreates the constellations (4.15); he

has a literally effective utterance. By proving that he can create and destroy by his

utterance, Marduk is given a scepter, throne, and staff of office.

This creative utterance is how God operates in Gen. 1:1-2:3. Nonetheless, the

Genesis account is more tightly structured in its six-day creation and seventh day of

ceasing, using the effective utterance, “and God said, ‘let there be”…and it was,” more

extensively than in the Enuma Elish and making it the primary mode of creation and a

formal organizing device with the turning of the days—introducing each day while each

day ends with “And there was evening and there was morning, the nth day.”

YHWH’s defeat of Pharaoh at the Sea of Reeds in Exod. 14-15 also echoes the

Enuma Elish.10 The Priestly version of this conflict emphasizes YHWH’s complete

control over the sea. He splits or divides (‫ )קעב‬the sea,11 creating two walls of water

through which Israel passed. These waters then defeat Pharaoh and his forces. Like Gen.

1:1-2:3, Exodus 14-15 appears to be a demythologized account of Marduk’s defeat of

Tiamat and all her forces and subsequent division of the waters. God showing his

sovereign control over the sea in Exodus reenacts his creation of the world through the

dividing of waters and results in the creation of Israel, which owes its allegiance to the

conqueror of the sea—reiterating the trope of kingship given to the god who overcomes

10
The classic investigation of this story vis-à-vis ancient Near Eastern cosmogonic combat myth is Cross’s
(Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 112-44), but he focused primarily on Canaanite (namely, Ugaritic)
myths in this regard, while recognizing similarities with the Enuma Elish.
11
Cf. the Priestly version of the Flood story, in which this term is also used to depict God’s intervention;
the term in the creation account is the root ‫בדל‬.
 84

the waters. In the first account, God splits the waters and creates the world, and the

second, God splits the sea and creates Israel.12

Just as in the earlier epics of Baal and Marduk, after creating and being

recognized as sovereign the next major priestly section gives detailed instructions to build

a “dwelling” (‫ )משכן‬or Tabernacle (Exodus 25-31; 35-40). Exodus 25-31 depicts God’s

detailed instructions given to Moses for building the Tabernacle, and Exodus 35-40

depicts its actual construction and God’s glory dwelling in it (i.e., his enthronement).

Throughout, the Sabbath weaves in and out of these sections, connecting the separated

accounts of the Tabernacle. Being literarily entwined, the Sabbath and the Tabernacle fill

out the ancient Near Eastern pattern that brings together “dwelling” and “resting.”

Just like the creation account of Gen. 1:1-2:3, the construction of the Tabernacle

culminates in the Sabbath. The construction of the Tabernacle, furthermore, begins with

the Sabbath. All of this culminates with God’s Glory filling the Tabernacle, becoming

enthroned in the dwelling-place/resting-place. But the interrelationships are more

extensive. The instructions for building the Tabernacle are enveloped in an inclusio of

12
See Sparks, “Enûma Elish and Priestly Mimesis,” 635-7. Additionally, the Song at the Sea (Exodus 15)
demonstrates strong associations with these ancient Near Eastern myths, as demonstrated by Cross,
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 112-44. In this version, YHWH as a warrior has cast the enemy forces
(Pharaoh and his army of chariots) into the Sea. Yahweh hurls, drowns shatters, crushes, and consumes his
enemy into the sea. In response, Yahweh, like Marduk, is exalted above the gods—“who is like you among
the gods? Who is like you, terrible among the holy ones?” (15:11)—and by destroying Pharaoh’s army,
and those who are settled in the land of Caanan and on the way to Canaan (15:15-16), Yahweh leads,
redeems the Israelites to his “holy encampment,” creating (‫ )קנה‬the Israelites as a people (15:16). Once
Yahweh created and settled the people, he was enthroned in his sanctuary, which he made by his own
hands (15:17). Finally, he will reign forever (15:18). In short, there is the divine combat myth of God
defeating the forces of Pharaoh, utterly destroying them by drowning them into the sea, creating a new
people of Israel in the process and settling them in the land. At the same time, Yahweh is exalted above the
other gods, and enthroned within the sanctuary. As Cross points out in detail, this very ancient song
strongly resembles Canaanite stories of Baal defeating Prince Yamm. Perhaps more like that story and less
like the Enuma Elish, however, the Song at the Sea, although having divine combat, creation (of a people),
enthronement, and sanctuary building (by God’s own hands), and even exaltation above other gods, it lacks
the element of rest that is so prominent in the Babylonian and Priestly versions.
 85

“six days, and on the seventh.” The first refers to the day of revelation: the thick, dark

cloud of the Glory of the YHWH settles on Mount Sinai for six days, and on the seventh,

YHWH calls out to Moses, Moses enters the cloud, and YHWH reveals the pattern

(‫ )תבנית‬of the Tabernacle to him (Exod. 24:15-25:9). At the end of YHWH’s direct

discourse to Moses there is a fairly lengthy command to keep the Sabbath (literally, “my

Sabbaths,” which is one of the linguistic indicators of the presence of the Holiness

School; 31:12-17). It is a “sign” that the LORD sanctifies his people. One keeps it

because it is holy, but whoever profanes it will be put to death and whoever works on it

shall be cut off (‫ )כרת‬from the people. At the same time, it links back to creation:

Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest ( ‫שבת‬
‫)שבתון‬, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be
put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the
Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign forever
between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and
earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (Exod. 31:15-17)13

First, the seventh day is the day of revelation of the Tabernacle, and then it is the

Sabbath—the day of God’s rest and the day of his people’s rest in imitation of him. The

Sabbath is venerated here in ways not found outside of the Priestly tradition as indicated

by the punishments for those who do not keep it correctly: death or banishment. It is

also the sign of the Sinaitic covenant between God and his people.14

Just as in the creation account, the command to observe the Sabbath succeeds six

distinct commands to Moses, introduced by the formula, “the LORD said to Moses”

(25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1), concerning (1) the offerings of the Tabernacle, the

13
All biblical quotations will be RSV unless otherwise noted.
14
It is often noted that there is a progression in the Priestly traditions in terms of the signs of the covenant,
becoming increasingly exclusive as one moves along: the rainbow with Noah, circumcision with Abraham,
and the Sabbath with Moses.
 86

construction of the ark and mercy-seat, the table of the bread of the Presence, the golden

lampstand, the curtains and frames of the Tabernacle, the veil that separates the inner and

outer shrines, the screen, an altar for burnt offerings, the court of the Tabernacle, the

priestly vestments and ordination, and the incense altar; (2) a census to register for the

half-shekel temple offering; (3) the bronze washing basin; (4) anointing oil and

consecration; (5) the special incense mixture set before the ark of the testimony; and (6)

the calling of the craftsman Bezalel to build all of it. The final (7) command in the

Tabernacle instructions is to observe the Sabbath. The structure moves from the most

holy space (the innermost space) outward, giving the perspective of God enthroned in the

innermost part of the shrine looking out.15 This structure is repeated in the building of

the Tabernacle with a few minor variations in order (Exod. 40:17-33). The seven

prescriptions of “the LORD said to Moses” are matched by seven actions carried out “just

as the LORD had commanded” (vv. 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32). While there is not an

exact equivalence between the elements within these commands, and the elements

created in each successive day, the general schema of six and then seven illustrates that

the building of the Tabernacle imitates and completes God’s own creation.16

The construction of the Tabernacle picks up where the instructions left off: the

Sabbath. Here it is a “holy Sabbath of solemn rest to the LORD (‫”)קדש שבת שבתון ליהוה‬

(35:2). The Sabbath is holy—something it is not in non-Priestly sources—and is a

“Sabbath of solemn rest.” The precise meaning of term ‫ שבתון‬is not clear. It only appears

in places that show the presence of the Holiness School. Andreasen suggests that it is an

15
George, Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space, 133-4.
16
Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord,” 502, n. 5.
 87

abstraction of the content of the Sabbath, i.e., “Sabbath-keeping.” While he allows that it

may be an intensifier, he claims that any superlative sense is unclear.17 This may be true

when it appears alone, such as on Rosh Hashanah or Sukkoth, but, as discussed below, its

varying usage develops a temporal holiness gradient with regard to different appointed

times, and, when placed in apposition to ‫ שבת‬on the Sabbath, the land’s Sabbath, and the

Day of Atonement, it accrues a superlative sense. The compilation of terms (‫קדש‬, ‫שבת‬,

‫ )שבתון‬emphasizes the heightened reverence the Sabbath receives in the Priestly tradition,

in which its holiness equals that of the Tabernacle.

The subsequent section that depicts the construction of the Tabernacle again

reflects the seven-part programmatic structure of Gen. 1:1-2:3. More exactly, the

components of the Tabernacle are built in Exodus 35-39, and their erection occurs in

Exodus 40. The construction of the Tabernacle further mirrors the opening of the Priestly

creation account in five more precise linguistic correspondences:18

17
Andreasen, Old Testament Sabbath, 111-3.
18
The following chart is taken from Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and Enthronement of the Lord,” 503; cf.
Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (HarperSanFrancisco, 1985) 142-5.
 88

Exodus 39-40 Genesis 1-2

And when Moses saw that they had And God saw all that he made ( ‫כל אשר‬
performed all the tasks (‫—)כל המלאכה‬as ‫)עשה‬, and found it (‫ )והנה‬very good.
the LORD had commanded, so they had (1:31)
done (‫)והנה עשה אותה‬. (39:43)

Thus was completed all (‫ )ותכל כל‬the The heaven and the earth were completed
work of the Tabernacle of the Tent of (‫ )ויכלו‬and all (‫ )וכל‬their array. (Gen. 2:1)
Meeting. (39:31)

When Moses had finished the work ( ‫ויכל‬ On the seventh day, God finished ( ‫ויכל‬
‫)משה את המלאכה‬. (40:33) ‫ )אלהים‬the work which he had been doing
(‫)מלאכתו אשר עשה‬. (2:2)

Moses blessed (‫ )ויברך‬them. (40:33) And God blessed (‫)ויברך‬. (2:3)

… to sanctify (‫ )וקדשת‬it and all its And sanctified it (‫)ויקדש‬. (2:3)

furnishings. (40:9)

Finally, the entire Tabernacle section has an inclusio of God’s Glory (‫)כבוד‬. The presence

of God, his Glory, depicted as a dense cloud upon Sinai, now fills and dwells in the

Tabernacle. In both places the cloud “covers” (‫ ;ויכס תענן‬24:15; 40:34) the mountain and

the Tabernacle, is depicted as God’s Glory (‫ ;כבוד‬24:16; 40:34), and, afterward, the

LORD calls out to Moses (‫ ;ויקרא אל משה‬24:16; Lev. 1:1). In addition to being a model of

creation, or a reflection of creation, the Tabernacle becomes a mobile Sinai.19

To schematize this argument, the larger patterns mirror one another: Gen. 1:1-2:3

structurally mirrors the Exod. 25-31 and Exodus 40:

Gen. 1:1-2:3: Six utterances/days of creation followed by Sabbath (seventh day)

Exodus 25:31: Six utterances/commands to Moses followed by Sabbath (seventh
utterance/command)
19
George, Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space, 128-9, argues that while the two involve graded holy spaces,
they present two classificatory systems (one vertical, the other horizontal). He says that the tabernacle
turns such vertical classificatory schemas on their side. Although he does not say so, this suggests that the
Tabernacle appropriates the holiness of Sinai’s sacred space, making it both mobile and “horizontal.”
 89

Exodus 40:17-33: Seven utterances that reflect the ordering of the previous
utterances

While developing these mirrored relationships between creation and the Tabernacle, the

entire Tabernacle section forms in its broad outlines a broad chiasm that focuses on the

Sabbath and relates both the Tabernacle and the Sabbath to God’s Glory.

a. Exod. 24:14-18: The Glory of God covers Sinai as a dense cloud for six days,
and on the seventh day, calls out to Moses.
b. Exod. 25:1-31:11: Description of Tabernacle and its accoutrements.
c. Exod. 31:12-17: Sabbath commands
c`. Exod. 35:1-3: Sabbath commands
b`. Exod. 35:4-40:33: Construction and Erection of the Tabernacle
a`. Exod. 40:34-Lev. 1:1: The Glory of God covers and fills the Tabernacle, and
calls out to Moses

The envelope of this chiasm is God’s presence—the Glory. It surrounds the account of

the Tabernacle. Its center and focus is the Sabbath. The sacred time of rest mimics

God’s rest of creation and is the sign of the entire covenant forms the central narrative

focus of the permanent, yet mobile, place of rest—that is, the Tabernacle. In this literary

organization, the Sabbath and the sanctuary become intertwined, if not identified. They

point toward one other; one implicates the other. The focus of the sanctuary is the

Sabbath; the most sacred space points to sacred time. The implication of this literary

organization that intertwines God’s presence, the Tabernacle and, the Sabbath is that the

sanctuary and the Sabbath are where and when God’s presence is most manifest, and,

thereby, the place and time that God’s holiness is most intensely expressed.

This final act of God’s Glory filling the Tabernacle, transferring sacred space

from Sinai to the Tabernacle, effects God’s enthronement between the Cherubim on the

cover (mercy-seat) of the Ark (Exod. 25:10-22; 37:1-9). This is the place were God will

now appear—the place of revelation—and where he will issue his royal commands:
 90

“There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two

cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you of all that I will

give you in commandment for the people Israel” (Exod. 25:22). The erection of the

Tabernacle and God’s indwelling within it also occurs on the first day of the first month

(Exod. 40:1, 17), again recall the time of God’s creation and subsequent rest, being the

day when time begins. It more directly recalls, however, the day the waters of the flood

parted—it was when a new creation emerged from chaotic watery destruction (Gen.

8:13); thus, the day of the erection of the Tabernacle recalls creation, again indicating the

Tabernacle as mirroring God’s creative acts as a microcosm.20

Transforming Tradition within the Narrative Pattern

By emulating the ancient Near Eastern pattern, using it as a framework in

dialogue with earlier Judahite traditions, the Priestly source also transformed the Hebraic

traditions, particularly those of the Tent, the Ark, God’s Glory, and the Sabbath, all of

which are associated with God’s presence.21 Firstly, the Priestly authors transformed the

previous traditions of the Tent of Meeting. In the non-priestly traditions, while the ark

was placed within the camp (Num. 14:44), the Tent of Meeting was pitched by Moses

himself outside the camp (Exod. 33:7-11). Moses would go outside the camp to meet

with God at this tent, and, after Moses entered the tent, the LORD would descend in a

pillar of cloud at the entrance of the tent and sometimes over the tent, and the LORD

20
On the relationship between creation and the Tabernacle in Rabbinic sources, see Midrash Tanhuma,
Pequday 2; Numbers Rabbah 12:12-13; b. Berakhot 55a; Mekhilta Shirah 10; Pesikta Rabbati 6; Pesikta de-
Rab Kahana 1:5; Tanhuma Va-Yakhal (Bub.) 61b-62a; cf. Gen. Rabbati 32.
21
Additionally, the altar is associated with God’s presence; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 413-4.
 91

would speak to Moses face-to-face (Exod. 33:7-11; Num. 11:16-29; 12:4-10; Deut.

31:14-15). Thus, its basic characteristics are that it was a place of meeting between

Moses and sometimes others (Num. 11:16-29) and God; it was outside the camp; it was

pitched by Moses; and the LORD usually remained outside at the entrance or above it

and was only present intermittently. There was no cult, sacrifice, or priests.

By contrast the Priestly version of the tent or Tabernacle is centrally located

within the camp—it is expressly built so that God may dwell among the people (Exod.

25:8);22 God’s Glory permanently resides there enthroned between the two cherubim of

the ark within, except when it was taken down to move (Exod. 40:34-38); the tent is

elaborately decorated with cherubim, golden materials, and woven curtains; there is a

fully operational sacrificial cult and priesthood; and the tent itself is separated between

inner and outer shrines with an additional court. It has acquired prominent characteristics

of Solomon’s temple, which the priestly writers adapted to the mobility of a desert shrine.

Moreover, while the ark was clearly not in the tent of meeting, since the former was

within the camp and the latter was outside the camp, the ark-as-God’s-throne was placed

within the inner shrine of the Tabernacle (Exod. 25:10-22; 26:34; 40:3).

The Priestly Tabernacle combined elements of Solomon’s temple and the Tent of

Meeting in its new spatial creation.23 The similarities between Solomon’s temple and

descriptions of the Tabernacle, which do not match the descriptions of the Tent of

Meeting, are quite remarkable. The Tabernacle and the temple both have cherubim and

22
The Priestly source uses “Tabernacle” and “Tent of Meeting” indiscriminately (e.g., Exod. 31:7; 39:40;
40:34; Num. 3:25; 4:25), sometimes together as the “tabernacle of the tent of meeting” (e.g., Exod. 39:32;
40:2, 6, 29; 1 Chr. 6:32); whereas non-P descriptions use “Tent of Meeting” (e.g., Exod. 33:7; Deut. 31:14;
Josh. 18:1; 19:51; 1 Kgs 8:4; cf. 2 Sam. 7:6).
23
Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 189-204, 260-75.
 92

an ark in the inner sanctum; a table, a lampstand, and an altar of incense in the holy place;

a burnt-offering altar and water containers in the court. In both, the inner furnishings are

gold and the outer are copper or bronze (see 1 Kings 6:28; 7:23-39, 48-50). While

usually poles are placed in the ark when moved, in both the Tabernacle and the temple

the poles remain when in place in the holy of holies (Exod. 25:15; 1 Kgs 8:8). All of the

internal surfaces of Solomon’s temple and the planks and inner pillars of the Tabernacle

are overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:20-22, 30, 32, 35), but there is no gold in the court.

Carvings of cherubim appear on the walls and doors of Solomon’s temple much like they

appear on the inner curtains and veil of the Tabernacle (1 Kings 6:29, 32, 35; cf. Ezek.

41:18-20, 25; Exod. 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35). The altar in both courts were made of bronze

(Exod. 27:1-8; 1 Kings 8:64; 2 Kings 16:14; Ezek. 9:2)—outside of these two

sanctuaries, there are no bronze altars in all of the Hebrew Bible. The golden altar of

incense in the Tabernacle reflects the similar altar in Solomon’s temple (Exod 30:1-10; 1

Kings 6:20, 22; 7:48). Likewise, the description of the Tabernacle’s lampstand resembles

the ten lampstands in Solomon’s temple (Exod. 36:32-7; 1 Kings 7:49).

Since it is not a stationary building, but a tent, adaptations have been made for

mobility—downsizing and the use of wood with metallic overlay (gold, bronze) rather

than solid metal.24 Moreover, unlike Solomon’s temple until the Chronicler’s

description, this structure is a divinely revealed structure (Exod. 25:9, 40; 26:30; 27:8),

shown to Moses at Sinai, and will become a mobile Sinai just as being a combination of

the Tent of Meeting and Solomon’s temple, it had become a mobile temple. The

Tabernacle provided a permanent residence for God in the midst of the Israelites, who

24
On the significance of the Tabernacle’s mobility, see George, Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space, 75-79.
 93

were without a permanent place, whereas, previously, God would come and go from Tent

of Meeting outside the camp at will; thus, the Tabernacle was a mobile temple in which

God would permanently reside among the camp—a poignant point for those living in

exile: God’s presence is not confined to one place, but can travel with the people.25

For the Priestly author, the most important piece of furniture in the Tabernacle

was the Ark, which was transformed by the Priestly authors into God’s throne by adding

the cherubic mercy-seat as its lid.26 Originally, the Ark of the Covenant/Testimony was

unassociated with God’s throne; it was a box containing important sacred talismans, such

as the tablets from Sinai and Moses’ budding staff.27 It was made of wood (no gold

overlay) and was carried by the Levites. Nowhere is there any mention of the chariot

throne (Deut. 10:1-5, 8). It was also apparently used in battle to indicate the presence of

God among the Israelites during fighting (1 Sam. 4:1-7:2; cf. 2 Sam. 6:1-23). Although

these passages mention the God who “sits upon the cherubim” (1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2),

it seems to be a descriptive epithet rather than related to the ark. In no non-priestly

document is the ark equated with God’s throne or does it have cherubim upon it.

On the other hand, God’s throne was associated with the Cherubim. YHWH was

the one who rode or sat upon the Cherubim, most vividly depicted in Ezekiel’s vision

(Ezek. 1:1-28; 10:1, 9-22; 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; Isa. 37:16; Ps. 80:2;

99:1; cf. 2 Sam. 22:11; Ps. 18:11). In Ezekiel’s vision of the living creatures/cherubim

that make up God’s throne, there is no mention of the ark. In Solomon’s temple, two
25
A similar point underlies the mobile throne in Ezekiel 1.
26
See Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 246-59.
27
George, (Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space, 167-74) argues that for the Priestly writers, the ark was a
deposit box for the instructions for the Tabernacle, mirroring similar practices of including the plan or
instructions of a temple or important building inscribed on tablets in an ornate box.
 94

huge cherubim made of olivewood and overlaid with gold stood in the inner sanctum—

they were so large that their wings spanned the entire width of the holy of holies when

placed side-by-side, while the ark was also placed as a separate object within the inner

sanctum, likely as God’s footstool (1 Kings 6:19, 23-8; 8:1-9).

The Priestly authors brought the two together. Although the priestly account of

the ark of the testimony and mercy-seat of cherubim still treats them as largely separate

objects, each receiving its own section (Exod. 25:10-16 for the ark; 25:17-22 for the

cherub throne) beginning with formula “and they/you shall make” (25:10, 17), the

priestly author uniquely combines the two, making the mercy seat with cherubim the lid

fixed upon the ark of the testimony. In the process of transformation, the Ark is placed

within the inner sanctum, like it was in Solomon’s temple but not in the tent of meeting,

and it is overlaid with gold along with its lid and all other implements within the inner

shrine. The cherubim too are transformed. In addition be being necessarily miniaturized

in a mobile setting, they now face one another and their wings overshadow the mercy-

seat, forming god’s throne with their wings. The Ark with Cherubim-shaped mercy seat

as its lid becomes God’s throne, the locus of God’s Presence among the Israelites and

from where God speaks to Moses (Exod. 25:22; 30:6; Lev. 16:2; Num. 7:89).

Additionally, both Ezekiel and the Priestly author prefer to speak of God’s

Presence in terms of the “Glory of the LORD.” This term exists in non-Priestly strands,

such as when Moses asked to see God’s glory (Exod. 33:17-23), the nimbus of God’s

manifestation or God’s greatness (Exod. 16:7; Ps. 104:31; 138:5; Is. 35:2) and for the

infilling of Solomon’s temple when built (e.g., 1 Kings 8:11 // 2 Chron. 7:1-3).28 Yet it

28
1 Kgs 8:10-11 are often thought to be a Priestly redaction meant to create continuity between the
Tabernacle and Solomon’s temple; see Hurowitz, I Have Build You an Exalted House, 262-66.
 95

became a terminus technicus for the divine presence in the Priestly tradition and in

Ezekiel with an explosion of usage. Ezekiel’s calls his vision of the humanlike figure on

the throne the “appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD” (Ezek. 1:28; cf.

3:23; 9:3; 10:4; 11:22-23; 43:4; 44:4). Likewise the “glory of the LORD” settled on

Sinai for Moses’ vision of the pattern of the Tabernacle (Exod. 24:16-17); the “glory of

the LORD” fills the Tabernacle when it was fully built (Exod. 40:34-5; cf. Lev. 9:6, 23;

Num. 20:6). God’s Glory dwells (‫ )שכן‬in the Tabernacle (‫ ;)משכן‬while other traditions

used both ‫ ישב‬and ‫שכן‬,29 the Priestly author preferred solely the latter.30

Most distinctively, in the Priestly tradition the Sabbath attains a much higher

degree of reverence. The most common traditions simply list the Sabbath alongside the

new moon,31 and do not indicate it as holy. Additionally, when looking at the Sabbath

commands of non-priestly strands in the Pentateuch, its holiness is again not emphasized:

Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your
ox and your ass may have rest, and the son of your bondsmaid, and the alien, may
be refreshed. (Exod. 23:12)

Resting on the seventh day has a humanitarian concern, meant to allow one’s

dependents—servants, aliens, and animals—to rest. But the day does not even have a

name; it is not even called a Sabbath here; it is not “holy”; and there are no punishments

attached. The Deuteronomic Decalogue is similar, emphasizing the concern for

dependents—servants, children, foreigners, and animals (Deut. 5:12-15). But the

reasoning is that one should allow one’s dependents to rest because one should remember
29
e.g., Ps. 47:8; 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Kings 19:15; Is. 26:21; 37:16 for the former term;
e.g., Ps. 135:21; Is. 33:5; 57;15; Joel 3:17, 21; Ezra 6:12 for the latter.
30
Exod. 25:8; 29:45-6; Num. 5:3; 35:34; cf. Deut. 12:5, 11; Zech. 2:10.
31
2 Kings 4:23; 1 Chr. 23:31; 2 Chr. 2:3; 8:13; 21:3; Neh. 10:33; Is. 1:13; 66:23; Ezek. 45:17; 45:3; Hos.
2:11; Amos 8:5.
 96

the servitude in Egypt. Yet in this source the day is actually called a “Sabbath,” the

standard phrasing of doing work for six days and resting on the seventh has been

amplified to not doing “any work,” and, finally, one must keep the Sabbath “holy” (5:12-

14). Thus there is a degree of increased importance of the Sabbath from non-Priestly

aspects of Exodus to Deuteronomy, yet no punishments are listed for abrogation.32

The Priestly tradition, therefore, gives the Sabbath a distinct stamp. Whereas

previously there were no punishments for breaching the Sabbath, in the Priestly source

the punishment for desecrating the Sabbath is death and working on the Sabbath is being

“cut off” (‫ )כרת‬from the people. The more stringent prohibition and accompanying

punishments appear with a new phrase, ‫שבת שבתון‬. This intensification of the Sabbath

appears in contexts that emphasize that absolutely no work is to be done. The Sabbath

has gained a marked increase in holiness indexed by the breach of Sabbath becoming a

more egregious offense to the degree its profanation acquires similar language as the

profanation of the sanctuary in the Priestly tradition.33 While God’s presence became

mobile and constantly present by dwelling within the Tabernacle in the midst of the

camp, with the increased holiness of the Sabbath, all those within the covenant can

experience God’s holiness every seven days. In short, the Priestly tradition, particularly

the Holiness School, transformed previous traditions, endowing greater holiness to the

Sabbath, and attaching God’s presence or Glory more clearly to the elements of the Ark

transformed into a throne and the Tent transformed into a Tabernacle—all of the

32
Cooper and Goldstein (“Development of the Priestly Calendars (I),” 13) are suspicious of Deuteronomy
knowing of the Sabbath. It only appears in this verse, and they see it as a priestly intrusion. Instead, they
see no interest in the Sabbath until the Holiness School, with all of the supposed Sabbath references in the
Priestly source denoting the pervasive editing activities of the Holiness School.
33
Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 196.
 97

elements necessary to imitate the ancient Near Eastern pattern of creation, enthronement

(Ark/Mercy-Seat), rest (Sabbath), and sanctuary (Tabernacle).

The Divinely Revealed Temple in Ezekiel and Exodus

What Moses saw when God revealed to him the “pattern (‫ )תבנית‬of the

Tabernacle” (Exod. 25:9, 40; cf. 26:30, 27:8) will prove important for both the Songs of

the Sabbath Sacrifice and Hebrews, in their configurations of the Sabbath and the

sanctuary, as they use the terminology of this verse to relocate the Tabernacle as an

enduring heavenly structure. This concept of a divinely revealed plan of a sanctuary has a

long history in the ancient Near East, particularly in Mesopotamia,34 the ‫ תבנית‬is another

innovation introduced by the Priestly tradition, while building upon Ezekiel’s divinely

revealed ideal temple (Ezekiel 40-48).35

34
The concept of a revealed plan for a sanctuary first appears in the famous dream of King Gudea of
Lagash as found in a cylinder from about 2125 BCE. The story contains two dreams sent from Ningirsu
concerning the temple Gudea is to build for the god34—the first is a bare outline of a sanctuary the god
Ningirsu wants built, which is interpreted by Gudea’s mother Nanshe, and the second Ningirsu is more
direct, more specific, and much lengthier about the various aspects of the temple called Eninnu. In the first
appears three figures: a man of boundless size, the “first woman,” and a warrior figure. The goddess
Nanshe, Gudea’s mother, interprets the dream to Gudea, telling him the boundless man was Ningirsu
himself—Nanshe’s brother—and the female figure was their sister, Nidaba. In the dream a plot of ground
is razed, and then the woman comes with a stylus and a piece of clay that has the stars of heaven,
consulting this piece of clay, and then another figure appears with the plan of the sanctuary on lapis lazuli.
The dream, therefore, reveals the divine plan of the temple Gudea is to build for Ningirsu: Eninnu.

Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harps that Once...: Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1997) 386-425; Hurowitz, I Have Built You An Exalted House, 33-57. Hurowitz more directly
compares and contrasts this story of divinely revealed building instructions to 1 Kgs 5:15-9:25.
Throughout his book, he discusses building stories as found in Sumerian, Old Babylonian, Assyrian, Neo-
Babylonian, and Biblical literature and inscriptions.
35
For an overview, see George Buchanan Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice
(New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1971 [original 1925]) 53-7; George Buchanan Gray, "The
Heavently Temple and the Heavenly Altar," Expositor VIII (1908): 385-402, 530-46. Gray discusses
Babylonian documents, Ezekiel, P, and the Chronicler.
 98

In Ezekiel’s vision, he sees a temple to be built and an angel measuring out its

dimensions in Jerusalem. In his vision, Ezekiel is transported from exile in Babylon to

the land of Israel, where he sees, “a structure like a city” (Ezek. 40:2). This passage uses

the same root as ‫—בנה—תבנית‬although it is not precisely the same term nor does it have

the technical regularity that the term attains in P and the Chronicler. There he sees a

“man whose appearance was like bronze” (Ezek. 40:3). Then they measure the ideal

temple structure. The exact measurements do not resemble any known temple, ideal or

real, recounted in any other ancient Hebrew or Jewish literature.36 Nonetheless, at the

end of their measuring and the revelation of the aspects of the structure of the building,

the Glory of the LORD enters and fills the temple (Ezek. 43:2-5; cf. 44:4).

The resemblances with Exodus 40 are striking: a divinely prompted vision of a

(future) temple; then the glory of the LORD enters and fills the temple (cf. 1 Kings 8:11-

12; 2 Chron. 7:2); and the glory of the LORD speaks. After this the similarities

seemingly end, since the content of the LORD’s message varies: in Exodus 40-Leviticus

1, the LORD issues commands concerning the maintenance of the cult, while in Ezekiel,

the voice condemns the sins of Israel that led to the exile. In order to shame Israel,

Ezekiel is to “describe to the house of Israel the temple and its appearance and plan, that

they may be ashamed of their iniquities” (Ezek. 43:10). In all of this, the closest the text

gets to the language of P is “plan” (‫)תכנית‬, “appearance” (in the OG), and “form” (‫)צרה‬.

The word for “plan” is close to the Priestly word for “pattern,” and, oftentimes scholars

are tempted to “emend” ‫ תכנית‬to ‫ תבנית‬due to the latter’s usage in the Pentateuch and

36
For a discussion of the different social maps created in Ezek. 40-48, see Smith, To Take Place, 47-73.
He identifies four hierarchical maps represented in these chapters, based upon the movement of different
groups of people through the gradient of holiness in this idealized temple-city and the allotment of land.
 99

Chronicles. Nonetheless, ‫ תכנית‬fits the context in Ezekiel, because it means something

more like “measurement.”37 The more common term throughout is “form” (‫)צרה‬. The

variety of terms suggests that there was not yet typical language to discuss such issues.

Nonetheless, the similarities return, since the LORD’s discourse leads to temple

ordinances, offerings and sacrifices, who is allowed to enter the temple (no foreigners!),

the respective duties of Levites and Priests, the allotment of land, etc. (chs. 43-8), with a

culminating vision of the river of life flowing from beneath the temple (47:1-12).

In sum, the same general pattern exists both in Exodus-Leviticus and in Ezekiel

40-48, starting with a revelation of an idealized sanctuary, the Glory of the LORD filling

that sanctuary, and then the Glory of the LORD issuing detailed cultic instruction from

within the sanctuary. This indicates a relationship between Ezekiel’s vision and P’s

narrative of the Tabernacle. Leviticus is more elaborated than Ezekiel 43-48, but this

may be due to differing genres. More determinative is that Ezekiel struggles to find

terms to depict the vision—using “form,” “likeness,” and “appearance”—whereas the

Priestly tradition from the Pentateuch to the post-exilic Chronicler, while occasionally

using other terms, prefer ‫ תבנית‬when speaking of the divinely revealed sanctuary

structure. Although the exact cultic requirements in Leviticus may be older, the Priestly

vision of the Tabernacle and its cult in Exodus and Leviticus in the form and organization

in which they appear appears to be a systematization of Ezekiel’s vision. Stated another

way, Ezekiel’s vision and the pattern it takes provided a model for the Priestly tradents in

exile to re-conceptualize and organize traditional cultic legislation.

37
See Paul M. Joyce, "Temple and Worship in Ezekiel 40-48," Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed.
John Day (London: T & T Clark, 2007) 155-6.
 100

The primary word used in the Priestly instructions for building the Tabernacle is

‫תבנית‬, which is a term that can be found throughout the Bible with a variety of meanings,

including “pattern” (Exod 25:9, 40; 1 Chron 28:11, 18), “copy” (Josh 12:28),38 “form” or

“image” or “shape” in idolatry (Deut 4:16-18; Is. 44:13; Ps. 106:20), as a term for

theophany (Ezek 8:3, 10; 10:10), or in a neutral sense (Ps. 144:12).39 The term derives

from the root, ‫בנה‬, which means “to build.” As such, its most basic meaning would mean

“something built,” “construction,” or “structure,” yet none of the early examples uses it in

this way. In the Hebrew Bible, it always refers to a replica of something rather than the

original thing itself.40

Exod 25:9 commences the instructions given by God to Moses for the

construction of the Tabernacle: “And have them make me a sanctuary, so that I may

dwell among them. In accordance with the pattern (‫ )תבנית‬of the Tabernacle and the

pattern (‫ )תבנית‬of all its furniture, so you shall make it” (25:8-9). The term “pattern”

38
“Copy” is appropriate since it refers to a non-functioning altar that resembles the LORD’s altar.
39
Deut. 4:15-18 associates the term with idolatry: since God did not take any “form” when he spoke to
Moses on Horeb, according to Deuteronomy’s version, one should not make any “likenesses” or “figures”
of “idols.” Is. 44:13 likewise uses the term to discuss how a craftsman gives wood a human “form” in
making an idol. Ps. 106:20 uses the term for the “image” of the bull that Aaron made. In Ezek 8:3, the
term is used as “form” as a circumlocution to avoid giving direct apprehension of God, a tendency of both
Ezekiel and the Priestly tradents. In this passage, the glorious human-like figure reveals to Ezekiel the
abominations in the temple and why God’s glory (‫ )כבוד‬has left the Jerusalem temple. In the process, the
word ‫ תבנית‬appears in the realm of the circumlocutions surrounding the “glory of the LORD,” which allows
one to communicate with God through a vision of an aspect of God, his “glory” which has a luminous
human-like appearance. Distancing terminology abounds in Ezekiel’s visions of God and his retinue,
including terms such as “form” (‫)תבנית‬, “appearance” (‫)מראה‬, and “likeness” (‫)דמות‬, particularly ‫מראה‬, and
can be found in a single line at the end of the opening vision of Ezekiel: “Such was the appearance of the
likeness of the glory of the LORD (‫הוא מראה דמות כבוד‬-‫( ”)יהוה‬Ezek. 1:28). The term as the “form” of the
divine hand also appears in 10:8, but also the “forms” of idolatrous images of “creeping things” in the
temple (8:10). So, while with Deuteronomy, it can refer to the “form” of an idolatrous image, it often
refers to the “form” of the “image of the likeness of the Glory of the LORD,” or some part thereof. It is
noteworthy that ‫ תבנית‬appears both in terms of the theophany of Ezekiel and the theophany at Sinai. Ps.
144:12 uses the term neutrally in a metaphorical passage referring to “our daughters” being like columns
formed to give “shape” to the palace (‫)תבנית חיכל‬.
40
See Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House, 168-70.
 101

(‫ )תבנית‬receives emphasis in its repetition—an aspect lost in most translations.

Subsequently, God tells Moses how to make the Tabernacle and its furnishings according

to the “pattern.” God, moreover, repeats this command with slight variations. In Exod.

25:40, God reminds Moses, “And see that you make them after the pattern (‫ )תבנית‬for

them, which is being shown you on the mountain.” The next reiteration, however,

changes terminology: “And you shall erect the tabernacle according to the plan (‫)משפט‬

for it which has been shown you on the mountain” (Exod. 26:30). This is the same idea,

and most of the language mirrors Exod. 25:9 and especially 25:40; however, the word

‫ תבנית‬has dropped out and been replaced by ‫משפט‬, which usually means “sentence,”

“judgment,” “justice,” or “law.”41 The term does occasionally, however, evince a larger

range of meanings. In addition to things like “judgment,” it can mean “custom” or

“manner,” much like the range of meanings of the Greek term νοµός, which can mean

“law” and “custom” or “manner.”42 On a rare occasion it can be used in terms of a

“plan.” In addition to being the “plan” of the Tabernacle, it is the “plan” of the temple in

1 Kings 6:38, referring to the completing of Solomon’s temple according to all of its

“specifications” (RSV) and of a palace in Jer. 30:18. These latter places are likely where

the Priestly author adopted this term, particularly the passage concerning the

“specifications” of Solomon’s temple, since the Tabernacle already adapted elements of

Solomon’s temple for the mobile desert shrine. Finally, Exod. 27:8 drops all such terms

altogether: “as it has been shown to you on the mountain, so shall it be made.” Here

41
Related terms from the same root can mean “judge” (‫)שופט‬, and the verb, “to divide,” “to judge,” or “to
decree” (‫ ;)שפט‬BDB 1048a-1049a; Jastrow 857b, 1614b.

42
Lidell and Scott, s.v. νοµός.
 102

there is no “pattern” or “plan” explicitly stated, but by this point the passage assumes

such a conception for Moses’ mountain-top vision.43

This “pattern” has traditionally been understood as either a model of the

Tabernacle, which is an interpretation going back to the bavli and medieval

commentary,44 or more recently that Moses saw the heavenly counterpart of the

Tabernacle.45 The latter is important evidence for the type of speculation that this

passage would engender yet it does not actually occur with regard to this passage until

the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Mark K. George has argued that the tablets placed in the ark in the priestly

account (Exod. 31:18) resemble the ancient Near Eastern practice of placing instructions

for a temple or important building inscribed on tablets and those tablets into an ornate

box.46 The usual assumption is that the tablets were the ten commandments, as is the

case later in the non-P narrative (Exod. 34:28-9), yet there is nothing in the narrative by

Exod. 31:18 that would indicate this. Important for this argument is the content of the

“testimony” (‫ )עדות‬for the “ark of the testimony” in the priestly layers of the text. It may

refer more to stipulations of a treaty rather than being a synonym for “covenant” (‫)ברית‬.

George relies upon Seow’s argument that ‫ עדות‬always refers to tangible objects in the

Priestly source, and, therefore, probably refer to the tablets themselves. If the connection

with the tablets is not made until 34:28-29, then the immediate reference would recall the

43
See also the ‫ מראה‬or “pattern” God showed Moses for the golden lampstand in Num. 8:4.
44
B. Men. 29a; Rashi and Ramban on Exod. 25:9, 40.
45
Perhaps most famously by V. Apowitzer, "The Heavenly Temple in the Agada" (Hebrew), Tarbiz 2
(1931): 137-53, 257-87.
46
Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space, 167-74,
 103

ancient Near Eastern practice of putting building plan inscriptions in a box. If he is right,

this may give a clue into the original meaning of the ‫ תבנית‬Moses saw—literally tablets

inscribed by the finger of God, the very description found in Exodus 25-31.

Despite the language of the ‫ משפט‬picked up from Solomon’s temple, the Priestly

use of the term ‫ תבנית‬as “pattern” would be influential for subsequent reflection, altering

the conception of the building of Solomon’s temple between the Deuteronomistic

Historian and the Chronicler. In 2 Samuel 7, where David expresses his wish to build a

temple, and 1 Kings 6-7, where Solomon builds the temple, there is no divinely revealed

“pattern” or “plan”—the “specifications” in 6:38 are never declared to be of divine

origin. In fact, the only direct address given from God to Solomon concerns Solomon

keeping God’s statutes and, in return, God will dwell among the people (1 Kgs 6:11-13).

By contrast, the Chronicler clarifies that Solomon’s temple was built according to

a divinely revealed plan (1 Chr. 28:10-19). This conception appears when David gives

Solomon instructions for building the temple, much like God gave instructions to Moses:

Take heed now, for the LORD has chosen you to build [‫ ]לבנות‬a house as the
sanctuary [‫ ;]למקדש‬be strong and act. Then David gave his son Solomon the plan
[‫ ]תבנית‬of the vestibule of the temple, and of its houses, its treasuries, its upper
rooms, and its inner chambers [‫ ]חדריו‬and of the room for the mercy seat; and the
plan [‫ ]תבנית‬of all that he had in mind. (28:10-12)

Just like the Exodus passage, the word ‫ תבנית‬is emphasized in repetition as David gives

instructions on the temple and its furnishings and vessels to Solomon much like God did

to Moses for the Tabernacle and its furnishings. Subsequently, the passage declares that

God directly gave David the ‫ תבנית‬of the temple, like God gave Moses the ‫ תבנית‬of the

Tabernacle at Sinai: “All this he made clear by the writing from the hand of the LORD

concerning it, all the work to be done according to the plan [‫( ”]תבנית‬1 Chr. 28:19).
 104

Ultimately, the term appears three times in the passage, with God giving the ‫ תבנית‬to

David and David, in turn, giving it to Solomon. The “plan” and the subsequent command

to “Be strong” (1 Chr. 28:10, 20) act as an inclusio. This appropriation of Priestly

terminology reveals a complex development of sanctuary traditions:47 the Priestly

Tabernacle combined Solomon’s temple and the Tent of Meeting into a new whole, and

the Chronicler’s vision of Solomon’s temple recombined the Priestly Tabernacle with

Solomon’s temple. The Chronicler provides the first interpretation of what ‫ תבנית‬may

mean—divinely revealed plans written by God’s own hand, something more obscurely

hinted at in the Pentateuch. As such, it is not yet a vision of a heavenly sanctuary.

Ultimately, there is a distinction between non-Priestly and Priestly uses of the

term ‫—תבנית‬the Priestly tradition stabilizes it to refer to the divinely revealed “plans” or

the “pattern” of the temple/Tabernacle—and, concomitantly, a non-P and P conception of

the sanctuary as something built by human initiative (pre-P) and by divine instruction

according to the divine “pattern” (post-P).48 While the Tabernacle is a merging of

Solomon’s temple and the tent of meeting within the broader scheme of creation, rest

(Sabbath), sanctuary (Tabernacle), and enthronement (mercy seat), the result is a divinely

revealed pattern that, being filled by the Glory of the LORD who then proceeds to issue

cultic instructions, builds upon Ezekiel’s vision in chapters 40-48. The account of

47
The Priestly influence on the passage also shows up in the term “mercy seat,” and the use of a curtain or
veil (2 Chron. 3:14). In the Deuteronomistic version, one finds the Ark (1 Kings 6:19) and one finds the
gigantic Cherub throne that was 10 cubits high (1 Kings 6:23-28), which stood over the Ark of the
Covenant, but they were separate structures. There is nothing called the “mercy seat.” The “mercy seat”
was P’s way of fusing the Ark to the huge throne of the cherubim into a single throne.
48
Both Ezekiel and P may be relying upon (or at least reflecting) another Mesopotamian custom in which
the plans or blueprints of a cult statue must be divinely revealed. Detailed measurements of temples were
also common, with the measurements having cosmic and theological significance. The gods sacred
dwellings were only suitable if they followed an ancient and/or divine plan; see Sparks, “Enûma Elish and
Priestly Mimesis,” 638-41.
 105

Moses’ vision combines the cosmogonic scheme, pre-existing tent of meeting and temple

traditions, Ezekiel, and the Holiness School’s concerns that aligns the sanctity of the

Sabbath with the sanctuary in order to construct a divinely revealed cultic system. The

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Hebrews would take the language of this revelation to

situate what Moses saw in the heavenly realm, transforming the “pattern” into an

enduring heavenly “structure” to enter on the Sabbath and equated with Sabbath rest.

Conclusion

By bringing the framework of the ancient Near Eastern pattern in dialogue with

traditional conceptions of the Tent, the Ark, and the Sabbath, the Priestly source

transformed both in the process, creating a new spatiotemporal dynamic by substituting

the Sabbath for the resting place. The architectonic organization of the Pentateuch

intricately interlaces the holy space of the Tabernacle with the holy time of the Sabbath.

The Sabbath becomes the focus of the sanctuary in the literary organization of the

Tabernacle construction. Within this organization, they manifest God’s presence in time

and space while that time and space imitate God’s creation. The text heightened their

importance, turning the Tent of Meeting into a mobile temple with full cultic capacities,

and the ark of the covenant into God’s throne as the most intense locus of God’s

presence, which, itself, became more systematically associated with the nimbus of God’s

Glory. Having endowed the wilderness Tent of Meeting with the aura of Solomon’s

temple, the Priestly tradition simultaneously raised the Sabbath to a heightened level of

sacrality and reverence that hitherto had only be directed toward the sanctuary. God’s

holy presence is revealed in mobile sacred space and accessed in sanctified time. No
 106

longer established according to human specifications, the Tabernacle’s construction and

the Sabbath’s juxtaposed observance form the spatial and temporal dimensions of a

divinely revealed pattern. By bringing the Sabbath and the Tabernacle together in this

manner, they have become the primary temporal and spatial expressions of God’s

holiness, and, as such, of God’s presence in the community. As mobile expressions,

God’s presence can be experienced anywhere, even in exile.

 107

Chapter 3: The Sabbath and the Sanctuary as Qualitatively Equivalent in Holiness

When the priestly tradents brought the ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies into

dialogue with Hebraic traditions, they created new interrelationship between rest and the

sanctuary from the sanctuary as a resting place to the sanctuary as the place of rest

entwined with the Sabbath, the time of rest. This ancient Near Eastern pattern found in

the Baal Cycle and in the Enuma Elish illuminates the literary artistry that interweaves

the creation, Sabbath, the Tabernacle, and enthronement, but in the process the Priestly

authors transformed the Sabbath and the Tabernacle, bringing them together by equating

them in holiness by elevating the sanctity of the Sabbath to the level of the sanctuary.

This equivalence has been partly illustrated through the chiasmic focus of the Sabbath in

the account of the Tabernacle, both of which were enclosed within God’s Glory,

becoming the space and time of God’s Presence. Ezekiel and the Holiness School,

however, bring them together more succinctly in holiness and profanation.1

Ezekiel and the Holiness School develop their spatiotemporal expressions of

holiness in inverse manners: Ezekiel equates their holiness negatively through one’s

ability to profane them (Ezek. 20:12-13, 16, 20-21, 24; 22:8, 26; 23:38), and the Holiness

School positively enjoins one to observe the Sabbath and revere the sanctuary conjointly.

Nonetheless, both prescribe the punishment for not properly regarding the holiness of the

1
Milgrom, Leviticus, 243. See Andreasen, Old Testament Sabbath, 69; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 16.
 108

sanctuary and the Sabbath as death, being “cut off” (‫)כרת‬, and exile.2 Thus, the Sabbath

and sanctuary not only are interwoven in a larger pattern, but have become qualitatively

equivalent: the Sabbath expressing God’s holiness in time; the Tabernacle, in space.

The Conjoined Veneration and Profanation of the Sabbath and Sanctuary

Ezekiel illustrates the holiness of the Sabbath and the sanctuary through one’s

ability to profane them equally. In an oracle in Ezek. 23:36-39, God says to Ezekiel:

The LORD said to me: ‘Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah? Then
declare to them their abominable deeds. For they have committed adultery, and
blood is upon their hands; with their idols they have committed adultery; and they
have even offered up to them for food the sons whom they had borne to me.
Moreover this they have done to me: they have defiled (‫ )טמאו‬my sanctuary on
the same day and profaned (‫ )חללו‬my Sabbaths. For when they had slaughtered
their children in sacrifice to their idols, on the same day they came into my
sanctuary to profane (‫ )לחללו‬it.

In this passage the defilement of the sanctuary is matched with the profanation of the

Sabbath, just as the veneration of the sanctuary is brought together with the observance of

the Sabbath in the Pentateuch. Leviticus 19 similarly couches the command to observe

the Sabbath and venerate the sanctuary in a passage that condemns improper worship in

terms of witchcraft, harlotry (cf. committing adultery in the Ezekiel passage), and

offering one’s children to Molech (Lev. 20:1-5). Ezekiel, therefore, brings together the

same set of issues present in the Holiness School: idolatry, observing/profaning the

Sabbath, venerating/defiling/profaning the sanctuary.

2
Andreasen (Old Testament Sabbath, 40-46, 75-6, 80-81, 238, 241-2) also observes that these statements
and the Holiness Code and Ezekiel show that the Sabbath and the temple were associated, although he does
not elaborate on the significance of this, except insofar as the Sabbath could only be fully celebrated in the
presence of the temple in Priestly thought.
 109

A similar juxtaposition occurs in the oracle against the sins of Jerusalem in

Ezekiel 22. Twice Ezekiel juxtaposes “my holy things” and “my Sabbaths,” resembling

“my sanctuary” and “my Sabbaths” in the other passages. Ezek. 22:6 reads, “You have

despised my holy things, and profaned my Sabbaths.” The “holy things” indicate the

various holy cultic implements up to and including the sanctuary itself. The list of sins

within this chapter is reminiscent of the Holiness School: idolatry, injustice, violence,

slander, adultery, fornication, and extortion (esp. Ezek. 22:1-16; cf. Leviticus 17-26,

especially 18-20). The second portion handles the sins of the priests of Jerusalem:

Her priests have done violence to my law and have profaned my holy things; they
have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they
taught the difference between the unclean and the clean, and they have
disregarded my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them. (Ezek. 22:26)

To sanctify in the Priestly tradition is to distinguish—sacred space and time are separated

into different grades. God separates and, thereby, hallows Israel in the Exodus. God,

however, accuses those in exile of an inability to distinguish sacred from profane,

particularly sacred space and objects in the “holy things” and sacred time in the Sabbath.

By lack of differentiation, that which is holy is profaned. The “holy things,” the

accoutrements of the sanctuary and the sanctuary itself, are profaned. Although the

Sabbath itself is not profaned by these actions, the disregard of the Sabbath profanes God.

More positively, the succinct statements in Lev 19:30 and 26:2 express this sacred

equivalence: “You shall keep my Sabbaths and venerate my sanctuary." Both instances

of this phrase come from the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26).3 In this pithy statement

the Sabbath and the sanctuary come together in a single command, and in Lev. 26:2 it

provides the Holiness summary of the Torah.

3
Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 14-19, 196.
 110

The first instance (Lev. 19:30) of this statement occurs in the context of proper

worship. The passage begins, typically, as a direct address from God to Moses:

Say to all the congregation of the people of Israel. You shall be holy; for I the
LORD your God am holy. Everyone one of you shall revere his mother and his
father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the LORD your God. Do not turn
to idols or make for yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God. (Lev.
19:2-4)

This section brings together three imperatives: keeping the Sabbath, revering one’s

parents, and avoiding idolatry. It summarizes how to maintain and imitate God’s

holiness. Revering one’s parents, observing the Sabbath, and avoiding idolatry

epitomizes the Decalogue for maintaining holiness. The rest of the chapter elaborates

how to attain this holiness by properly worshipping God through sacrifice at his

designated sanctuary, social and agricultural laws, improper worship (witchcraft,

tattooing, mediums), and ending with the proper treatment of strangers. In the portion of

improper worship lies the statement, “You shall keep my Sabbaths and reverence my

sanctuary.” It is a positive commandment in a series of prohibitive ones, causing it to

stand out. By positively revering the Sabbath, the sanctuary, and one’s parents and

negatively avoiding improper worship, one maintains holiness.

The next occurrence (Lev. 26:1-2) of this pithy statement more explicitly relates

proper observance to the health and holiness of the people of Israel. Standing at the head

of a section, the statement reads:

You shall make for yourselves no idols and erect no graven image or pillar, and
you shall not set up a figured stone in your land, to bow down to them; for I am
the LORD your God. You shall keep my Sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary: I
am the LORD.

This again summarizes the entirety of the divine commandments. One must avoid

improper worship (set up by the first part) and enjoin proper worship (the second part).
 111

Proper worship of God is summarized in terms of keeping the Sabbath and revering the

sanctuary. The rest of the chapter contains the blessings (Lev. 26:3-13) and the

punishments (Lev. 26:14-45) for obeying and spurning, respectively, all of the

commandments summarized in this succinct statement. In the punishment portion, the

breach is generally referred to as spurning the “commandments” or “walking contrary to

me,” yet particularly egregious in this list is failure of Sabbath observance, particularly

the land’s Sabbath (Lev. 26:34-5): by failing to observe the Sabbath (especially the

land’s Sabbath), God will destroy and drive the people out, and the land will enjoy the

Sabbaths, “the rest it had not in your Sabbaths when you dwelt upon it” (Lev. 26:25). In

the maintenance of holiness and God’s blessings, therefore, the entire list of

commandments for properly worshiping God are summarized in terms of keeping the

Sabbath and revering the sanctuary, metonyms covering the entirety of sacred time,

sacred space, and proper worship—the epitome of holiness.

Both Ezekiel and the Holiness School bring together the Sabbath and the

sanctuary similarly, although in inverse ways: one prescriptively enjoining to observe the

Sabbath and venerate the sanctuary, the other condemning those who profaned the

Sabbath and profaned/defiled the sanctuary. Reverence and profanation are the two sides

of the same coin of holiness. The observance of the two was a unit; they are so closely

identified that they recurrently appear in a single sentence. The observance of one

indicates the observance of the other; the profanation of one indicates the other’s neglect.

This alignment of their observance contrasts non-priestly traditions in which they remain

separate and in which the Sabbath is usually paired instead with the new moon festival.

While the Sabbath was previously considered holy (see Deut. 5:12-15) and its observance
 112

“keeps” it holy, Ezekiel and the Holiness School indicate an equivalent holiness between

the two, a level of holiness not quite expressed elsewhere. To bring them together in this

unprecedented way indicates relatedness or equivalence in their observance and in the

reverence they deserve, one being observed and revered through time and the other in

space. In this stage of the Priestly tradition, the Sabbath and the sanctuary become the

epitome of the expression of God’s holiness in time and space respectively.

As the sanctuary and the Sabbath constitute God’s holiness in space and time

through their conjoined observance and reverence and their conjoined profanation, so

they receive equivalent status in their punishments for non-observance and desecration.

The profanation of God’s Name, the sanctuary, and the Sabbath will be highlighted in

these punishments in the Holiness School and Ezekiel.

In Holiness School language, Exod. 31:12-17 lays out the heightened importance

of the Sabbath after the Tabernacle instructions:

And the LORD said to Moses, “Say to the people of Israel, ‘You shall keep my
Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that
you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. You shall keep the Sabbath,
because it is holy for you; everyone who profanes it shall be put to death;
whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Six days shall work be down, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest ( ‫שבת‬
‫)שבתון‬, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be
put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the
Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign forever
between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and
earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.’”

Just as Lev. 19:30 and 26:2 tersely juxtaposed the Sabbath and the sanctuary, giving

sequential priority to the Sabbath, and Ezek. 23:38 (cf. 22:8, 26), giving priority to the

sanctuary, this section likewise brings the two together. This lengthy commandment to

observe the Sabbath with grave consequences when profaned is the culmination of the
 113

instructions for the Tabernacle. This passage uses Holiness School terminology in its

usage of “my Sabbaths” and “throughout your generations.” Most important is the

degree to which the holiness of the Sabbath is highlighted. One keeps the Sabbath

“because it is holy for you” and “it is holy to the LORD.”

The language used for the breach of the Sabbath commandment emphasizes this

holiness. Profaning Sabbath is described in the same language as profaning or

desecrating the sanctuary. In Exod. 31:14, this is stated as, “everyone who profanes it

(‫ )מחלליה‬shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off

(‫ )נכרתה‬from among his people.” Similar language of profaning the sanctuary is used in

Lev. 21:12 and Lev. 21:23. The first speaks of the special commandments and

prohibitions surrounding the high priest—not letting his hair hang loose, not going near

any dead body, qualities of the high priest’s wife (Lev. 21:10-24)—and comes in a larger

section concerning the holiness of the priesthood in general (Leviticus 21). In this

context, the text reads: “neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane (‫ )יחלל‬the

sanctuary of his God” (Lev. 21:12).

Likewise, in the section that commands that no high priest who descends from

Aaron can have any physical blemish, although he is allowed to eat the Bread of the

Presence, one reads the following: “but he shall not come near the veil or approach the

altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane (‫ )יחלל‬my sanctuaries; for I am

the LORD who sanctify them” (Lev. 21:23). In all of these cases, the profanation of the

Sabbath and the profanation of the sanctuary by the high priest use the same root (‫)חלל‬.

Their equivalent holiness is emphasized to the degree that they each can be “profaned,”4

4
See Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 14-19, 63-8, 196. “Profane” is one of many meanings of this term,
which has a rather wide semantic range. It can mean “to begin”; most often “to pierce,” “to bore,” “to
 114

and is further expressed in the reason given for keeping the Sabbath, “that you may know

that I, the LORD, sanctify you” (Exod. 13:13). One keeps and hallows the Sabbath to be

sanctified by the LORD. Likewise, the importance of not profaning the sanctuary

culminates in the similar statement: “for I am the LORD who sanctify them” (Lev.

21:23). One keeps the Sabbath and venerates the sanctuary, or one does not profane each

of them, because God has sanctified “you” and “them,” the individual Israelite, the

Sabbath, and the sanctuary. In other words, because God has sanctified the people, the

Sabbath, and the sanctuary, making them all holy, they must not be profaned.

The term, ‫חלל‬, in the sense of “profane” potentially shows up sixty-six times in

the Bible. While multiple things can be profaned, three stand out: 1) the Name of God or

God (21 times or 32%),5 2) the sanctuary and its accoutrements, including the “holy

things” (19 times or 29%),6 and 3) in a trailing third place the Sabbath (10 times or

15%).7 Other things that can be profaned include humans through prostitution or

marrying a prostitute (4 times), rules or statutes (twice) or “what is holy by the law”

(once), one’s father’s bed (once), and potentially the covenant (three times, although the

word here may mean “repudiate” rather than “profane”).

The terminology, moreover, is highly concentrated in the Priestly source,

particularly the Holiness School, and Ezekiel. The Priestly Source includes seventeen of

slaughter,” “to wound”; “to repudiate”; and “to profane.” In fact, it is the term used for God piercing the
serpentine sea monster, Rahab/Leviathan.
5
Lev. 18:21; 19:8, 12; 20:3; 21:6; 22:2, 23; Ezek. 20:9, 14, 22, 39; 36:20, 21, 22, 23; 39:7; Jer. 34:16, Is.
48:11, Am. 2:7; Mal. 1:12.
6
Exod. 20:25; Lev. 21:12, 23; 22:15; Num. 18:32; Ezek. 7:22, 24; 9:7; 22:8, 26; 23:38, 39; 24:21; 25:3;
28:18; 44:7; Mal. 2:11; Ps. 74:7; Dan. 11:31.
7
Exod. 31:14; Ezek. 20:13, 16, 21, 24; 22:8; Is. 56:2, 6; Neh. 13:17, 18.
 115

the sixty-six references (26%). Sixteen of these clearly come from the Holiness Code

(Leviticus 17-26), and the remaining one likely influenced by the Holiness School. All

sixteen of these references appear in Lev. 18-22. Ezekiel, amazingly, contains thirty-one

of the references (47%). Other references include the non-Priestly portion of the

Pentateuch (once), Isaiah (three times—one being the Name of God and the other two the

Sabbath), Nehemiah (twice—both being the Sabbath), Psalms (four times), Daniel (once),

Malachi (three times), Jeremiah (twice), Amos (once), and 1 Chronicles (once).

In sum, while multiple things can be occasionally “profaned,” mostly the Name of

God, the sanctuary (and things associated with the cult), and the Sabbath can be profaned,

emphasizing their holiness. Moreover, the prevalence of the terminology in Ezekiel and

the Holiness School, sources that appear to be part of the same larger trajectory, is by far

higher than any other document in the Hebrew Bible.

Within these numbers, Ezekiel accounts for half of the references to the

profanation of the Name of God (ten times: Ezek. 20:9, 14, 22, 39; 36:20, 21, 22, 23;

39:7), occurring primarily in chapters 20 and 22, which are the chapters that bring

together the Sabbath and the sanctuary/holy things. In these passages, God speaks in

direct discourse to Ezekiel, saying that He poured His wrath on the Israel, “for the sake of

my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations” (20:9 and par.). If

God had left Israel unpunished after it had profaned the Sabbath and profaned the

sanctuary, then God’s own name would be profaned.

The Holiness School takes up the majority of what is left (seven times: Lev.

18:21; 19:8, 12; 20:3; 21:6; 22:2, 32), where improper worship, such as offering one’s

child to Molech, not having proper reverence for God’s “holy things,” and falsely
 116

swearing by God’s Name profanes God’s Name. Jeremiah (once: Jer. 34:16), Isaiah

(once: Is. 48:11), Amos (once: Am. 2:7), and Malachi (once: Mal. 1:12) round out the

totals. There is only one clearly pre-exilic usage (Amos), while the majority are either on

the cusp of exile or early exilic (primarily Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Deutero-Isaiah).

Malachi is post-exilic, and the Holiness School is likely exilic or post-exilic.

Nonetheless, it is clear that H and Ezekiel stand within the same trajectory or milieu.

Ezekiel accounts for half of the references to the profanation of the Sabbath (five

times: Ezek. 20:13, 16, 21, 24; 22:8), four in the same chapter, and all occurrences

appearing where the Sabbath and the sanctuary/holy things are conjoined. After this, it

emerges in the Priestly Source (once: Exod. 31:14),8 Isaiah (twice: 56:2, 6), and

Nehemiah (twice: Neh. 13:17, 18). The two occurrences in Isaiah occur within a few

verses of one another, all in Trito-Isaiah (Is. 56:2, 6), as do the references in Nehemiah.

Therefore, all of the non-Pentateuchal references (nine) are exilic or post-exilic,

associating the heightened reverence for the Sabbath with the Babylonian Exile.

With regard to the profanation of the sanctuary and its cult, again Ezekiel takes

the lead, accounting for the majority of the occurrences (eleven out of nineteen: Ezek.

7:22, 24; 9:7; 22:8, 26; 23:38, 39; 24:21; 25:3; 28:18; 44:7). While the profanation of the

Name and the Sabbath appear solely in chapters 20 and 22, one can see that the

desecration of the sanctuary and its cult is far more diffuse throughout Ezekiel. The

Priestly Source comes next with four occurrences (Lev. 21:12, 23; 22:15; Num. 18:32),

with three out of four appearing in small cluster in the Holiness Code. Finally, Malachi

uses the term once (2:11), non-P once (Exod. 20:25; with regard to the altar), the Psalms

8
Normally considered P, but given the similarity of language to the Holiness Code, Knohl places this
Sabbath passage in the Holiness School.
 117

once (74:7), and Daniel once (11:31). Therefore, the concept of the profanation of the

sanctuary and its cult is widespread, but most concentrated in Ezekiel, writing

contemporaneously with its destruction. The concern of the profanation of the cult was,

again, primarily, although not exclusively, one of the Exile. The only occurrence that is

undoubtedly pre-exilic is the non-Priestly source (Exod. 20:25). The Psalm is clearly one

of the exile, lamenting the destruction and profanation of the sanctuary (74:7); Ezekiel is

early exilic, and Malachi and Daniel are clearly post-exilic.

The concern for profaning God’s Name, the sanctuary, and the Sabbath are

primarily exilic and post-exilic, explaining why the exile occurred. Ezekiel accounts for

half of the occurrences under each category, most of which are clustered in chapters 20

and 22. The term ‫ חלל‬in terms of “profanation” only appears twice out of sixty-six times

in sources clearly dated to the pre-exilic period (Amos and non-P), and forty-seven out of

sixty-six times in sources clearly exilic or post-exilic. This leaves the Priestly Source’s

seventeen occurrences, sixteen part of the Holiness School with the remaining one likely

influenced by it. It is possible that the Holiness Code provided the basis for the exilic

speculation on the profanation of the Name, the sanctuary, and the Sabbath, but it is more

probable that the Holiness School’s (including Ezekiel’s) interest in profanation was

heightened during this period in response to the sanctuary’s destruction.

The attention paid to the potential profanation of the Name, the sanctuary, and the

Sabbath, particularly in the exilic period, indicates the level of holiness that each had.

They are also interrelated. In Ezekiel and the Holiness School, particularly, it is improper

worship and the profanation of the Sabbath and the sanctuary/holy things that profane

God’s Name. Reverence for God’s holy places and times keeps God’s Name holy;
 118

profaning God’s holy place and time, profanes God’s Name. Profanation clarifies a triad

of God’s holiness: God’s self (Name), in space (sanctuary), and in time (Sabbath).

The Punishments for Profanation: ‫כרת‬, Death, and Exile

Profaning the holy Name, the holy sanctuary, and the holy Sabbath, in turn, had

severe consequences—being “cut off” or “vomited” from the land and death. The

punishment for the profanation of the Sabbath in the Priestly tradition is two-fold, death

and being “cut off” (‫ )כרת‬from the people. Being “cut off” may sound incomprehensible

after death. But ‫ כרת‬may indicate more than banishment in this life; it probably also

relates to burial. If one is excluded from the social group, one would likely not be able to

be buried with one’s family or “gathered unto their ancestors”9—something roughly

equivalent to being denied Christian burial within the holy burial grounds near a church

from the Middle Ages until today. With ‫כרת‬, one is excised from this world and excluded

in the next. Moreover, it also may include the extermination of one’s line, or making sure

one does not leave offspring in this world.10

As a punishment ‫ כרת‬is important for the maintenance of holiness. There are

eighteen instances of it in the Pentateuch, all occurring in Priestly texts, relating to a

whole range of violations. They include breaches regarding sacred time, such as

neglecting the Passover sacrifice (Num. 9:13), eating leaven during the Festival of

Unleavened Bread (Exod. 12:15, 19), working on the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14), and

working or not fasting on Yom Kippur (Lev. 23:29, 30). They include the consuming or

9
For burial texts, see e.g., Num. 20:24, 27:13; 31:2; Gen. 15:15; 25:8; 35:29; 47:30; 49:33; Judg. 2:10.
10
Milgrom, Leviticus, 66-7.
 119

duplicating of sacred substances: consuming blood (Lev. 7:27; 17:10, 14), eating

sacrificial suet (Lev. 7:25), duplicating or misusing sanctuary incense (Exod 30:38) and

anointing oil (Exod. 30:33), eating a sacrifice beyond the permitted period (Lev. 7:18;

19:8), eating a sacrifice in a state of impurity (Lev. 7:20-21). ‫ כרת‬is also the punishment

for neglecting circumcision (Gen. 17:14; Josh 5:9) and for neglecting purification after

contact with the dead (Num. 19:13, 20). It is the punishment for improper worship:

blasphemy (Num. 15:30-31; cf. Lev. 24:15), sacrificing to Molech and other forms of

idolatry (Lev. 20:2-5; Ezek. 14:8), consulting the dead (Lev. 20:6), and slaughtering

(Lev. 17:4) and sacrificing (Lev. 17:9) animals outside of the sanctuary. Finally, ‫ כרת‬is

the punishment for illicit sex (Lev. 18:27-29).11

While this list seems to present a bewildering variety of circumstances for which

‫ כרת‬is the proper punishment, much of this can be categorized as violations of proper

worship in terms of when, where, and what: violating sacred time, sacred space (or

worshiping in the wrong place), the substances used for such worship, and the purity

necessary to engage in such worship; in short, the sacred times and the ritual purity and

ritual accoutrements needed for the sacrifice and worshiping in the sanctuary.

Additionally, for males circumcision is a prerequisite for inclusion in cultic worship in

Israel by being included in the covenant. Those who fail to keep time, place, and

themselves holy are expunged so that the larger group can maintain holiness.

The same holds for the punishment of death, which is left for some of the most

egregious offences. Death is the punishment for a variety of legal offences: crimes

against God and cult (foreign cults, blasphemy, and violations of religious institutions),

11
This list is taken from Milgrom, Leviticus, 65-6.
 120

homicide, sexual crimes (violations of marriage, violations of chastity, incest,

homosexuality, and bestiality), insubordination and treason, perjury, and crimes against

persons (such as kidnapping).12 Most of these instances of death appear in the Priestly

legislation, but many of them are common in most ancient cultures (blood vengeance

regarding homicide being the most common). Most of the time, a “blood-avenger”

carries out the punishment of death, but in three cases, the entire community (the “people

of the land”) collectively act as executioners: the Molech worshipper (Lev. 20:2-5), the

blasphemer (Lev. 24:10-16), and the profaner of the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-6).13 In these

three instances, again, the issue is improper worship (not worshiping God correctly in his

sanctuary) and not keeping sacred time (the Sabbath), maintaining the holiness of God’s

holy name, place, and time. All three cases come from the Priestly legislation. In each

case, the violator is taken “outside the camp” and stoned to death by the community. The

first instance is a case of worshiping a foreign god, the second with cursing God’s Name

(or improperly invoking God’s Name), and the final example is not observing or properly

revering sacred time—the man put to death here was gathering sticks on the Sabbath.

The collective action of the community expunges the threat from the community,

maintains holiness in the sanctuary and the land, and avoids being “vomited” out for

failing to punish these transgressions (Lev. 20:22). In offering one’s child and “playing

12
de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 158; Moshe Greenberg, "Crimes and Punishments," Interpreter's Dictionary of
the Bible, Vol. 1 (New York: Abingdon, 1962) 737-41; Beth A. Berkowitz, Execution and Invention:
Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic and Christian Cultures (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)
255, n. 44.
13
Berkowitz, Execution and Invention, 107. Cf. William Robertson Smith (Lectures on the Religion of the
Semites (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1894) 283-5) who draws a relationship between collective
stoning and communal sacrifice. In both, the responsibility for death of the animal and the person rests
upon the entire community. This potential connection between execution and sacrifice might also explain
why in Num. 35:33-4 only the death of a murderer can be said to atone for the impurity that the bloodshed
has imputed onto the land.
 121

the harlot” to Molech, the punishment is excision (‫ )כרת‬and death. This cultic crime

against God defiles the sanctuary and profanes God’s holy Name (Lev. 20:3). As with

the profanation of the Sabbath and the sanctuary, this breach of the commandment

against a particular form of foreign worship results in “profanation,” but this time of the

“holy name” alongside the “defiling” (‫ )טמא‬of the holy place. The next example is related

to this: if sacrificing to Molech profanes the holy name, then blaspheming the holy name

also carries the punishment of death by collective stoning of the entire community.

Unlike these two passages, the Numbers passage of the violation of the Sabbath contains

a narrative component in addition to the prescription. The death penalty for violating the

Sabbath is mentioned three times in the Pentateuch, all in the Priestly sources (Exod.

31:14; 35:2; Num. 15:32-6). The Numbers passage is the only place where it is actually

carried out by the entire community pelting stones. The other two instances occur in the

Sabbath passages interwoven into the construction of the Tabernacle. The first instance,

quoted extensively above, emphasizes the punishment most clearly, repeating it twice:

…everyone who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it,
that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but
the seventh is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any
work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. (Exod. 31:14-15)

The consequences are grave, much like Molech worship: both ‫ כרת‬and death, with the

twice-mentioned death being emphasized. Death, but not ‫כרת‬, is subsequently repeated

as a punishment for doing work on the Sabbath in Exod. 35:2. These prohibitions and

punishments highlight the heightened holiness of the Sabbath.

The punishments for the profanation of the Sabbath, indicating the increased

holiness of the Sabbath, can also be found in Ezekiel. Once again finding strong

resemblances with the Priestly traditions found in the Pentateuch, especially the Holiness
 122

School, Ezekiel 20 lists Sabbath observance as the ordinance par excellence, and its

profanation as the reason for the wilderness generation failing to enter the Promised

Land. The importance of the Sabbath and its profanation shows up no less than six times

in chapter 20 (as a positive command, Ezek. 20:12, 20; as something profaned, Ezek.

20:13, 16, 21, 24), reiterated with regard to the current condition of exile (Ezek. 22:8).

The language of this passage resembles the Holiness School: using terms like

“my Sabbaths,” repeating “I am the LORD your God,” as well as other linguistic

signatures, especially with Leviticus 18-20.14 Like the Priestly traditions already

discussed, Ezekiel calls the Sabbath a “sign between me and them, that they might know

that I the LORD sanctify them” (Ezek. 20:11; cf. Ezek. 20:20). One observes and

hallows the Sabbath, which is itself a sign that God sanctifies. The Sabbath is the focal

point of the holiness between God and the Israelites: the Israelites hallow the Sabbath,

which is the sign of God sanctifying them, just as in Exod. 31:12-17.

The desecration of the Sabbath, in turn, takes on the exact same language of the

Priestly source (‫)חלל‬. The crimes of the wilderness generation, then, were failing to

observe the “ordinances,” failing to “walk” in the “statutes,” defiling themselves with

idols, and failure to observe the Sabbath. Thus, two general categories of “ordinances”

and “statutes” and two specific offences of idolatry and Sabbath profanation are listed in

this chapter. In response, God did not allow them to enter the Promised Land (20:15-16),

yet God nonetheless restrained his hand “for the sake of my name, that is should not be

14
E.g., the language of “walking” (‫ )חלך‬in the “statutes” (‫ )משפטים‬and “ordinances” (‫ )חקותים‬found
throughout this chapter (Ezek. 20:11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, cf. 25; Lev. 18:4). Moreover, through the
observance of these, “man shall live” (Ezek. 20:11, 13, 21, cf. 25; Lev. 18:5). There is clearly a strong
relationship between Ezekiel 20 and the Holiness Code, especially with Leviticus 18 and the increased
reverence and holiness of the Sabbath.
 123

profaned in the sight of the nations” (Ezek. 20:22; cf. 20:9, 14). God would eventually

“scatter them among the nations and disperse them through the countries” (Ezek. 20:23).

The problem of exile, being forced outside of the land, originates in the wilderness

generation (according to Ezekiel, two generations) in this chapter. It is ‫ כרת‬on a grand

scale, and it matches the punishments in the Holiness School for the nation in general

failing to follow the commands: the nation as a whole will be “vomited” out of the land

(Lev. 18:28), just as an individual is “cut off” (Lev. 18:29), because failure to obey

results in the defilement of the sanctuary and the land (Lev. 18:28). Likewise, Jeremiah

cites failure of Sabbath observance, as a metonym for general adherence to the entire

covenant (Jer. 17:19-27). Finally, Ezekiel presents two of the same three things that can

be profaned: God’s Name and the Sabbath—the other being the sanctuary.

Sabbath Observance and Cultic Inclusion in Trito-Isaiah

In the Pentateuch and Ezekiel, improper reverence of the sanctuary and lack of

observance of the Sabbath, or their profanation, leads to being cut off from the

community. The inverse corollary to this is that proper observance and reverence of the

Sabbath and the sanctuary leads to full inclusion and participation in the cultic life of the

community. As profanation of “my Sabbaths” and neglect of the land’s Sabbath lead to

being cut off, barring access to the sanctuary and land, Sabbath observance allows full

participation in the temple cult in the covenanted community.

In these terms, Is. 56:1-8, the beginning of Trito-Isaiah, brings the Sabbath and

the sanctuary together in a different, yet complementary, way to the Holiness School and

Ezekiel. This brief passage includes two of the ten instances of profaning the Sabbath in
 124

the Hebrew Bible, showing a heightened awareness of this problem in the post-exilic

context. Simultaneously, proper Sabbath observance becomes the requirement for

coming to the sanctuary, the “House of Prayer.” The Sabbath is the temporal access to

the sanctuary; full cultic participation at the sanctuary is the reward for observing the

Sabbath. Trito-Isaiah universalizes the relationship, however, allowing full cultic

participation for any Sabbath-observer, even eunuchs and foreigners, which contradicts

Deuteronomy’s laws, Ezekiel’s and the Holiness School’s purity requirements, and

Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s attempts at genealogical purity. It is inclusion based upon

behavior rather than genealogy, whereas the other sources demanded both. The “House

of Prayer” is open to all who observe the Sabbath.

In general, like other exilic and post-exilic writings, Trito-Isaiah emphasizes the

Sabbath’s significance (Is. 56:1-8; 58:13-14). In Is. 56:1-8, observing the Sabbath occurs

three times (vv. 2, 4, 6) and profaning it twice (vv. 2, 6).15 The Sabbath is paired with not

doing evil (v. 2), doing pleasing things and keeping the covenant (v. 4), and adhering to

the covenant (v. 6). Keeping the Sabbath is the only specific injunction mentioned.

Throughout, the Sabbath, sanctuary, and covenant are interwoven:

Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say,
“The LORD will surely separate me from his people”;
and let not the eunuch say,
“Behold, I am a dry tree.”

For thus says the LORD:

“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant
I will give in my house and within my walls

15
For a discussion of this passage in the context of the treatment of the temple in Trito-Isaiah as a whole,
see Jill Middlemas, "Divine Reversal and the Role of the Temple in Trito-Isaiah," Temple and Worship in
Biblical Israel, ed. John Day (London: T & T Clark, 2007) 164-87.
 125

a monument and a name

better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
which shall not be cut off.

“And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD

to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD
and to be his servants,
everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it
and holds fast my covenant—
these I will bring to my holy mountain
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all peoples. (56:3-7)

Trito-Isaiah takes the Priestly development of covenant to its logical conclusion: since

the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant (Exod. 31:16-17) and the Sabbath and the sanctuary

are interrelated, keeping the Sabbath or covenant has implications for maintaining the

sanctuary and its cult: those who keep the Sabbath can approach the sanctuary. In this,

Trito-Isaiah is firmly ensconced in the developments found in the Priestly Source and, to

a degree, in Ezekiel. Nonetheless, the passage takes this relationship between covenant,

Sabbath, and the sanctuary to unexpected places.

While Trito-Isaiah clearly relates the Sabbath to the sanctuary, its configuration

differs from the previous sources. By keeping the Sabbath and the covenant, one can

approach and participate in the temple, the “house of prayer,” and its cultic life.

Moreover, in a twist on the history of their interrelationship, the oracle here universalizes

the application. Both the eunuch and the foreigner receive rewards related to the temple,

because they observed the Sabbath and kept the covenant. Both groups are explicitly

excluded in Deut. 23:1-7. Deut. 23:1 prohibits those whose testicles are crushed or male

member cut off from entering the assembly, but in Trito-Isaiah the eunuch, whose source
 126

of progeny has been “cut off” will receive a monument and a name within “my house”

(i.e., the temple). This monumental name is better than sons and daughters and will not

be “cut off,” the same word used for the punishment for profaning the Sabbath. Unlike

those who profane the Sabbath and are “cut off,” by observing the Sabbath even a

eunuch, who has no source of progeny and, therefore, no means of continuing his name,

will receive an enduring name in the temple that will not be “cut off.”

Moreover, even a foreigner who has “joined himself to the LORD” can have full

participation in the cult if that foreigner keeps the Sabbath and the covenant. This

passage shows some early signs of conversion. Whereas the Priestly delineation of

successive covenants moved from general to specific, from universal to just Israel, with

covenants from Noah with rainbow, Abraham with circumcision, and Moses with the

Sabbath, Trito-Isaiah takes the final covenant with the Sabbath as its sign and applies it to

everyone who chooses to observe it. By observing the Sabbath and the covenant, these

foreign devotees to the LORD can come to the holy mountain, be “joyful” in the “house

of prayer,” and offer burnt offerings and sacrifices upon the altar. The “house of prayer”

is now open to all: “for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples”

(56:7). The cultic equivalence of a foreigner and native Judahite is emphasized by God

bringing the foreigner into the temple, using the hiphil of ‫בא‬, something used only for

return of exiles elsewhere in Trito-Isaiah (Is. 60:9; 66:20) and associated with bringing of

the elect into the sacred city by the LORD in the Hebrew Bible (Exod. 15:17; Jer. 3:14;

Ps. 78:53-4; Neh. 1:9). The conclusion is that foreigners who observe the Sabbath

become part of the elect.16 Therefore, by keeping the Sabbath and covenant, the eunuch,

16
Middlemas, “Divine Reversal,” 174.
 127

in a reversal of the punishments for profaning the Sabbath, receives an enduring name

that will not be “cut off” and the foreigner can come to the sanctuary on the holy

mountain and fully participate in its cult. Access to the sanctuary is determined by one’s

behavior—Sabbath observance—rather than by one’s genealogy.

This contrasts the pronouncements of both Deuteronomy and Ezekiel, in which

foreigners in the sanctuary automatically profane it. Deut. 23:2-6 excludes Moabites and

Ammonites from entering “the assembly of the LORD” for at least ten generations, while

an Edomite and an Egyptian may enter the assembly after the third generation (23:7-8).

On the other hand, Ezekiel is much more far-reaching in the exclusion of foreigners:

O house of Israel, let there by an end to all your abominations, in admitting

foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning it.
(Ezek. 44:6-7)

No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are
among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary. (Ezek. 44:9)

Although resident aliens are accounted for and given an inheritance (Ezek. 47:22-3), they

cannot participate in the temple and its cult, being uncircumcised in heart and flesh.

There may be an unforeseen development, since Ezekiel does not account for foreigners

who keep the covenant and have become circumcised in heart and flesh. Similarly, Ezra

and Nehemiah exclude all foreigners from cultic worship by making the people abandon

marriages with “people of the land” and abandon the children of those marriages—

children who could have been raised to honor the God of Israel properly —making it

clear that genealogy is the primary issue (Ezra 9-10; Neh.10:28-30; 13:23-31).17

Trito-Isaiah’s inclusivity is striking in contrast, taking a specific interrelationship

between the Sabbath and the sanctuary and making it applicable to all willing to observe

17
Cf. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 236.
 128

the Sabbath, no matter their genealogy. This broadened access to the sanctuary is

predicated upon Sabbath observance. Those who appear to be “cut off” from any

progeny or “separated” from the cultic life of the temple will have those divisions

rectified; if they keep the Sabbath and the covenant, they shall be joined with the

community, and have benefits in the sanctuary; i.e., access to God.

Conclusion

Ezekiel, the Priestly Source, and the Holiness School bring the Sabbath and the

sanctuary together as the dual dimensions of God’s holiness in time and space.

Throughout, there has been a triad of relationships. Avoiding idolatry (or revering one’s

parents), revering the sanctuary, and observing the Sabbath become the metonym of the

entire list of ordinances and statutes that God gives, especially in the Holiness School.

The Sabbath is the sign of the covenant, after all; failure to keep it indicates failure to

keep the entire covenant. Ezekiel presents this in an inverse way, showing these same

ordinances and statutes to have been neglected at the same time as the sanctuary and the

Sabbath were profaned. Indeed, on par with God’s Name, both the sanctuary (and its

cult) and the Sabbath can be profaned. In terms of their profanation, the Name, the

sanctuary, and the Sabbath provide a new triad of holiness: God’s holiness expressed in

God’s self, holy space, and holy time. The accounts of this profanation primarily occur

in writings related to the Priestly tradition (Ezekiel, P, and H).

Moreover, concern with it became extraordinarily important in the exile and post-

exilic times, providing a theological reflection of and explanation for the exile: the exile

occurred because the Name, the Sabbath, and the sanctuary were profaned (and
 129

elsewhere, defiled). The punishments of the Priestly source and Holiness School of ‫כרת‬

and death reflect the exilic situation of death (during the original siege of Jerusalem) and

being “cut off” from the land en masse. The inverse corollary of this position,

exemplified by Trito-Isaiah, is that if one properly observes the Sabbath and the

covenant, one will not be “cut off” and fully included in the covenanted community.

Trito-Isaiah takes this position to its furthest conclusion, universalizing it so that any

Sabbath observer, even a eunuch and a foreigner, can have access to the sanctuary. When

taken together, the Sabbath is the access to the sanctuary and the reverence for both

allows one to stay in the land; neglect and profanation bars access.

Throughout, there is a strong correlation between Ezekiel and the Holiness School

in terms of bringing together the Sabbath and the sanctuary as the epitome of God’s

holiness (alongside God’s Name), with very strong linguistic and conceptual

correspondences between Leviticus 18-22, 26 and Ezekiel 20 and 22. The joining of the

Sabbath and sanctuary together in reverence, profanation, and holiness in these legal

portions, pithily presenting the duality of God’s holiness mirror the more elaborate

narrative patterns of the bringing together the Tabernacle and the Sabbath within the

larger ancient Near Eastern framework of creation, Sabbath, Tabernacle, and

enthronement. While their development coincides, the narrative portion looks forward to

the (re)establishment of God’s presence in space and time among the covenanted

community, while the legal portions give a retrospective explanation of loss by

profanation of the Sabbath and the sanctuary.

 131

Chapter 4: Extensions of and Corollaries to the Sabbath/Sanctuary Equivalence:

The Land’s Sabbath and the Day of Atonement

The priestly interrelationship between the Sabbath and the sanctuary extends to

the land’s Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. In the Holiness School and Ezekiel the

holiness of the sanctuary extends to the land as well as its concomitant potential for

profanation and defilement. “Moral impurity,” in this line of thought, defiles the sinner,

the sanctuary, and the land. When this moral impurity accumulates, the presence of God

cannot remain within the sanctuary and within the land, leading to destruction and exile.

The restoration of the sanctuary from its accumulated impurities occurs on the Day of

Atonement. The Day of Atonement is the central ritual event, since it is the intersection

of the most holy space—the holy of holies—and the most holy time: it is the most holy

time when the most holy person, the high priest, enters the most holy place in order to

purge the sanctuary, himself, and the people of their impurities.

As the land acquires similar characteristics to the sanctuary, it requires its

Sabbath. In the Holiness School, both the land’s Sabbath and the Day of Atonement are

called a Sabbath1 and a ‫שבת שבתון‬, and both have severe punishments for non-observance.

Just as when one does not venerate the Sabbath one will be cut off from the people, if the

people do not observe the Day of Atonement they will be cut off and if they fail

collectively to observe the land’s Sabbath they will be cut off en masse—that is, exiled.

1
Cf. the non-Priestly passage, Exod. 23:10-11, where the word “Sabbath” never appears. Moreover, even
for the rest on the seventh day, the word “Sabbath” never appears (Exod. 23:12-13).
 132

Like the Sabbath and the sanctuary, non-observance explains exile, although agency is

not given to the invading forces, but to the land itself, which “vomits” out the defiling

inhabitants. One must observe the Sabbath and revere the sanctuary, and one must

observe the Sabbatical and avoid moral impurity imputed on the sanctuary and land.

Impurity and Purgation: The Sanctuary and the Land

Over thirty years ago, Jacob Milgrom argued that the ‫ חטאת‬offering did not purify

or purge the one who offered it.2 Indeed, other actions were taken to purify the violator

of a particular commandment. Instead, the blood of the ‫ תחטא‬purged the impurity of the

courtyard altar, the incense altar, and/or the ark and kapporet, God’s throne, depending

upon the severity of the impurity. Firstly, inadvertent misdemeanors or severe physical

impurity pollutes the outer courtyard altar, which was purged by daubing the horns of the

altar with blood (Lev. 4:25, 30; 9:9ff). Secondly, inadvertent misdemeanors committed

by the high priest or by the community as a whole pollutes the shrine itself, which is

purged by the high priest placing the blood on the inner altar of incense in front of the

paroket-veil (Lev. 4:5-7, 16-18). Finally, wanton, non-repented sins defiled the ark and

the kapporet, purged yearly on the Day of Atonement (literally Purgation) (Lev. 16:16-

19). On this day, the entire tent, from the Holy of Holies to the outer altar must be

purged with the blood. While the blood of a slain goat purged the sanctuary, a live goat

purged the people; the holy people (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; 20:26) needed purgation just as the

holy place did. This purgation maintained the divine presence—as Milgrom notes, God

2
Jacob Milgrom, "Israel's Sanctuary: The Priestly 'Picture of Dorian Gray'," Revue Biblique 83.3 (1976):
390-99.
 133

tolerates a modicum of pollution, but there is a point of no return after which God

abandons the sanctuary, leaving it and the people to their doom.

While parts of this picture have been critiqued, mostly the concept that sin

offerings do not purge those who present it and always purge parts of the sanctuary, his

broader synthesis and analysis of the purgation of the sanctuary on Yom Kippur have

been found perceptive.3 More recently, Jonathan Klawans has further reflected upon this

phenomenon of the sanctuary attracting impurity, focusing on the “moral impurity” that

defiles the sanctuary and the land.4 Klawans focuses on three actions that encapsulate

“moral impurity” that defile both the sanctuary and the land: bloodshed (Num. 35:33-

34), idolatry (Lev. 19:31; 20:1-3), and sexual immorality (Lev. 18:24-30).5 For Klawans,

these constitute “moral impurity” rather than “ritual impurity.” He distinguishes ritual

and moral impurity, their source, their effect, and their resolution as follows: ritual

impurity derives from bodily flows, corpses, etc., leading to temporary, contagious

impurity, resolved by bathing or ritual ablutions and waiting; moral impurity derives

3
Roy E. Gane ("Privative Preposition ‫ מן‬in Purification Offering Pericopes and the Changing Face of
'Dorian Gray'," JBL 127.2 (2008): 217), for example, argues, “Purification offerings throughout the year
remove evils only from their offerers, prerequisite to forgiveness (‫ )סלח‬from sin, or accomplishing a final
level of purification (‫ )טהר‬from physical impurity. In a second stage of ‫ כפר‬on Yom Kippur, beyond
forgiveness or purification of impure persons, impurities and moral faults accumulated at the sanctuary are
removed from it, thereby (with regard to the moral faults) secondarily accomplishing corporate moral
cleansing (verb ‫ )טהר‬of the Israelites (16:30).” Thus, it is a two-stage process: most sin offerings
throughout the year purge the person on whose behalf they are presented (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6), while
the sanctuary receives its purgation once a year. Gane is responding to Milgrom’s critique of Gane’s
earlier critique of Milgrom. Jacob Milgrom, "The Preposition ‫ מן‬in the ‫ חטאת‬Pericopes," JBL 126.1 (2007):
161-3; Roy E. Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005).
4
Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 15, 26-31.
5
There is one category of infraction that defiles the sanctuary but not the land, per se, and that is failing to
purify oneself after coming into contact with a corpse (Num. 19:13, 20) and after a genital discharge (Lev.
15:31). While these are ritual impurities rather than moral impurities under Klawans’s definitions, the
failure to take care of ritual impurity when one knows about it becomes itself a form of moral impurity,
affecting the sanctuary itself. Again, the language here is that of “defilement” of the Tabernacle (Lev.
15:31; Num. 19:13) and defiling the sanctuary (Num. 19:20) leading to karet (Num. 19:20).
 134

from sins, such as idolatry, incest, and murder, leading to the defilement of the sinners,

the land, and the sanctuary, resolved by atonement (purgation), punishment, and exile.6

While ritual impurity is never attached to the land, moral impurity builds up, leading to

expulsion. These three categories of moral impurity, all called “abominations” (‫)תועבות‬,

defile the sinner, the sanctuary, and the land. As these three abominations accumulate in

the sanctuary and the land, the land will eventually “vomit” the people out.

One might further break this analysis down, adding a few key components.

Starting with sexual immorality, Leviticus 18 gives a whole list of sexual sins (largely

incest), culminating with the command:

Do not defile (‫ )תטמאו‬yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the
nations I am casting out before you defiled themselves (‫ ;)נטמאו‬and the land
became defiled (‫)ותטמא‬, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its
inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and do none of
these abominations (‫)התועבת‬, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among
you (for all of these abominations (‫ )התועבת‬the men of the land did, who were
before you, so the land became defiled (‫ ;))ותטמא‬lest the land vomit you out, when
you defile it (‫)בטמאכם‬, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For
whoever shall do any of these abominations (‫)התועבות‬, the persons that do them
shall be cut off (‫ )ונכרתו‬from among their people. So keep my charge never to
practice any of these abominable customs which were practiced before you, and
never to defile yourselves (‫ )תטמאו‬by them: I am the LORD your God. (Lev.
18:24-30)

One striking aspect of this passage is the land’s agency: the land itself can only tolerate

so much defilement (‫—)טמא‬as distinguished from profanation (‫—)חלל‬and will itself

eventually vomit out whoever commits these particular abominations (sexual sins, largely

incest). Moreover, it does not matter who does these things—native Israelite or

foreigner—the result is the same. It is automatic; whenever sexual sins are committed in

the land, no matter by whom, the land becomes defiled. When this defilement reaches

6
Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 27.
 135

saturation, the entire people, collectively, will be vomited out. At the same time, the

individual perpetrator shall be “cut off” (‫)כרת‬, just as in the violation of the Sabbath.7

For idolatry, Klawans cites the prohibitions against wizards, sorcery, and

necromancy (Lev. 19:31) as well as Molech worship (20:1-3). This first passage comes

directly after the “profanation” of one’s daughter by making her a prostitute and the

command to keep the Sabbath and revere the sanctuary. This first passage only lists

defilement of the self. The second defiles the sanctuary and profanes the holy name. But

the priestly tradition preserved in Ezekiel directly connects defilement with idolatry,

leading to the expulsion from the land (Ezek. 20; 22:8, 26; 36:18-19; 37:23).8

Finally, in Num. 35:33-4 bloodshed pollutes and defiles the land, and no expiation

can be made for the land except by the blood of the one who shed blood.9 The reason

given is that the LORD dwells in the midst of the land; thus, the LORD will not be able

to tolerate the defilement of the land. The defiling force of bloodshed is taken up in

Ezekiel as well, defiling the temple (9:7) and land (9:9; 33:25) the holy city (22:1-4),

leading to expulsion. In these series of defilements, sexual immorality defiles the self

and the land; idolatry, the self and the sanctuary; and bloodshed, the land. The

accumulation of the impurity leads to ‫ כרת‬on the individual level and expulsion en masse.

7
Cf. Jer. 3:1.
8
Other traditions relate idolatry to expulsion from the land, but do not use the terminology of “defilement.”
Idolatry and land defilement or pollution does show up in Deut. 18:9-12 and 2 Kings 16:3, which speak of
the abominations, and, in the latter, offering up one’s child as a sacrifice (as to Molech), but does not use
the terms “pollution” or “defilement.” They just note that this is what the Israelites’ predecessors, who
were driven out, had done—not quite saying that the same would happen to the Israelites themselves,
something that may be an innovation of the Holiness Code and the Priestly tradition as a whole, including
Ezekiel. Jer. 7:9-15, however, connects stealing, murder, adultery, swearing falsely, and worship of the
Baals as reason to casting out from the land. Jer. 16:18 again does so with just idols.
9
Cf. Ps. 106:34-41, which connects idolatry and bloodshed with the pollution and defilement of the land.
 136

Yet while the properties of the holiness of the sanctuary are applied to the land, so

are the properties of its counterpart, the Sabbath (Leviticus 25). While these actions

defile the land, the Land’s Sabbath rejuvenates it, gives it rest, although it does not purge

the defilement. Moral impurity—not ritual impurity—defiles the land while proper

behavior gives it rest. Moreover, in the Sabbatical of Sabbaticals, the Jubilee, all things

are restored: each family receives back its original holdings, property that was lost is

redeemed, one buys back their neighbors from servitude.

While there are non-priestly versions of the seventh year (e.g. Exod. 23:10-13),

like the earlier traditions of the seventh day they do not call it a Sabbath or give it the

heightened significance the Holiness School does. From the Holiness perspective, by

keeping the Land’s Sabbath and the Jubilee, one can “dwell in the land securely” (Lev.

25:18, 29). If the punishment for defiling the land is expulsion, the reward for keeping

the land’s Sabbath is having a secure dwelling in the land. Much like keeping the

Sabbath allows access to cultic worship in the sanctuary, so keeping the Sabbatical allows

the people access to the land. Keeping the land’s Sabbath and the Jubilee culminates in

the command to avoid idolatry or setting up a figured stone “in the land” and to “keep my

Sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary” (Lev. 26:1, 2). Keeping the Sabbaths and revering

the sanctuary fructify the land, while sins result in punishments. By keeping the Sabbath,

revering the sanctuary, and obeying God’s ordinances and statutes, “the land shall yield

its increase, and trees of the field shall yield their fruit” (Lev. 26:4). In short, it leads to

fertility of the land and the people and security within the land, including security from

enemies (Lev. 26:1-13). But disobedience leads to terror, lack of health and infertility of

the people and the land, and being destroyed by one’s enemies (Lev. 26:13-17).
 137

In the end, the land will be devastated and the people scattered (Lev. 26:32-3).

The ultimate reason for desolation and exile is failure to give the land its Sabbath. When

the people are exiled,

Then the land shall enjoy its Sabbaths as long as it lies desolate, while you are in
your enemies’ land; then the land shall rest, and enjoy its Sabbaths. As long as it
lies desolate it shall have rest, the rest which it had not in your Sabbaths when you
dwelt upon it. (Lev. 26:34-5)

This passage views the situation from exilic retrospect. While the purported position is

before entering the land, it is already speaking of being expelled from it, as the exiles had

been. Giving the land its rest, however, rectifies the land. It is how the land can

rejuvenate itself after its defilement by removing the source of its defilement. For, even

when God forgives, the land must keep its rest. After it has rested, the people can return:

But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery
which they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I
walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies; if then
their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity;
then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant
with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. But the
land shall be left by them and enjoy its Sabbaths while it lies desolate without
them; and they shall make amends for their iniquity, because they spurned my
ordinances, and their soul abhorred my statutes. (Lev. 26:40-43)

In sum, the Priestly portions of the Pentateuch, particularly the Holiness School, postulate

two ways to be spewed out from the land: defiling it by sexual immorality (H), idolatry

(H), and bloodshed (P), and by failing to give the land its Sabbaths (H). In fact, the text

assumes these fit together: when one defiles the land (by setting up idols on the land, for

example), one is probably also failing to give it its Sabbath rest. While moral impurity

defiles the land, rest restores it. Keeping the Sabbath (and Sabbatical) along with all of

the ordinances blesses the land, while ignoring it and committing “abominations” defiles
 138

it. The land’s Sabbath and the land’s Defilement are opposing sides of the same coin—

one gives blessings and security, the other leads to insecurity and exile.

Likewise, in Ezekiel another factor comes in play, idolatry is connected with

profaning the Sabbath. Stated another way, defiling oneself with idolatry is the inverse

action to observing the Sabbath (Ezekiel 20). When coupled together idolatrous

defilement and Sabbath profanation explain the expulsion from the land (Ezek. 20:23-4;

cf. Jer. 17:19-27). The same reasoning is given in 2 Chron. 36:17-21—the temple was

destroyed, the people carried off into exile so that the land could keep its Sabbaths,

combining the prophecies of Jeremiah, that the land would remain desolate for 70 years

(Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10) with the Priestly ideology of the land’s Sabbath: that the land

needed its Sabbaths because of all the defiling sins and the neglect of the land’s Sabbath.

Therefore, while particular sins (sexual immorality, idolatry, and bloodshed)

defiled the sanctuary and the land, leading to expulsion from the land, many of the same

qualities that applied to the interrelationship between the Sabbath and the sanctuary were

extended to the Sabbatical and the land. In fact, defilement of the sanctuary/land is the

flip side of Sabbath-observance/Sabbatical year. While avoiding these sins, venerating

the sanctuary, observing the Sabbath and the land’s Sabbath leads to security in the land

and blessings, neglect leads to exile. All of these sources in the Priestly tradition

(Ezekiel, P, and H) argue that the exile is a response to both defilement of land and

sanctuary and the failure to keep the Sabbath and the land’s Sabbath. While lying

desolate, the land will finally enjoy its neglected Sabbaths, rejuvenating itself, so that

eventually one can return. As such, the land’s Sabbath has an ameliorative effect (in H

and Ezekiel), restoring the land and finally purging its defilement. While the land’s
 139

Sabbath, also a “Sabbath of solemn rest” (‫ )שבת שבתון‬blesses the land and/or restores the

land from its defilement, whether voluntary or enforced by exile, the purging of the

sanctuary occurs on the Day of Atonement (Day of Purgation), a day called a Sabbath, a

“Sabbath of solemn rest,” with similar injunctions to do no work with the threat of ‫כרת‬.

The Day of Atonement: The Holy of Holies Meets the Sabbath of Sabbaths

The Day of Atonement is the ritual event that coordinates the Sabbath and the

sanctuary, holy time and holy space, at their greatest intensity. While other ritual events

were important for coordinating holy space and holy time,10 this relationship between

holy space and holy time becomes intensified in the priestly legislation for the Day of

Atonement (Leviticus 16 and 23). Moreover, while the larger mythic patterns participate

in and emulate ancient Near Eastern stories, particularly the Enuma Elish, which was

recited on the fourth day of the Babylonian akitu festival, the Day of Atonement partially

reflects the fifth day of that festival, called the kuppuru. The narrative and ritual go

together: Marduk mythically overcomes maleficent powers on day 4 and on day 5 the

priests purge the sanctuary of dangerous demonic impurity.11

In the priestly legislation, the high priest can only enter the holy of holies on the

Day of Purgation. Only during this time and in this space can atonement be made for the

sanctuary, the priest, and the people before God. It is the time of the most direct access

to God, who is enthroned in his most holy place. The Day of Atonement, along with the

10
For example, an important event for later traditions is Shavuot, which recounts Moses at Sinai, the giving
of the covenant, and in later tradition develops some interesting intersections between the Sabbath and the
Tabernacle, as will be demonstrated with regard to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.
11
As can be found in ANET 331-34; see Milgrom, Leviticus, 163-5; Kenton L. Sparks, “Enūma Elish and
Priestly Mimesis,” 632-5.
 140

Sabbatical year, according to the priestly legislation, moreover, is called a Sabbath and a

“Sabbath of solemn rest” (‫)שבת שבתון‬, an intensifier that can be loosely construed, a

“Sabbath of Sabbaths,”12 acquiring similar prohibitions and punishments as the Sabbath

day itself. Thus, the priestly sacred space-time intensifies to its greatest extent in the

ritual event where and when the Holy of Holies meets the Sabbath of Sabbaths.

The Day of Atonement in Festival Lists (Numbers 28-29 and Leviticus 23)

The Day of Atonement rite is discussed in three places in the Priestly legislation:

extensively in Leviticus 16 and within the list of festivals Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28-

29. The Numbers list, usually considered P,13 is primarily concerned with the special

sacrifices offered on particular days, beginning with the daily Tamid sacrifice (28:1-8),

the Sabbath (28:9-10), the new moon (28:11-15), Feast of Unleavened Bread (28:16-25),

First Fruits or Shavuot or Pentecost (28:26-31), Day of the Trumpet Blasts or Rosh

Hashanah (29:1-6), Day of Affliction or Day of Atonement (29:7-11), and finally the

Feast of Booths (29:12-38). This list never prohibits work on the Sabbath itself—this

prohibition is the interest of the Holiness School.14 But “laborious work” is prohibited

(although lighter activities, presumably, are not) on the first and seventh days of the Feast

of Unleavened Bread (Num. 28:18, 25), during the First Fruits festival (Num. 28:26), Day

12
That is, at least, how the LXX translates this phrase into Greek: σάββατα σαββάτων (e.g., Lev. 23:32),
or more literally, “Sabbaths of Sabbaths.” Andreasen (Old Testament Sabbath, 111-12), however, is a bit
wary of attributing such a superlative sense. This may be true when ‫ שבתון‬appears alone, but when
juxtaposed with ‫שבת‬, on the Sabbath itself, on the Day of Atonement, and the Land’s Sabbath, it does
appear to separate these times more conspicuously than other appointed times in a superlative sense.
13
Though see Cooper and Goldstein (“Development of Priestly Calendars (I),” 13-14) for an argument of
Holiness School editing.
14
Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence.
 141

of the Blasting Trumpets (Num. 29:1), Day of Affliction (Num. 29:7), on the first and

eighth days of the Feast of Booths (29:12, 35). In short, laborious work is forbidden on

the first and last days of any major festival, but not on the Sabbath.

The Holiness School, however, is far more interested in heightening the holiness

of the Sabbath and applying its terminology to other major holidays, particularly those of

the seventh month (Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkoth) and the seventh year (the

land’s Sabbath). Leviticus 23, which seems to have been an earlier priestly list redacted

by the Holiness School,15 presents the following ordering of appointed festivals: the

Sabbath (23:3), Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread (23:4-8), First Fruits (23:9-14),

Shavuot or Pentecost (23:15-22), Rosh Hashanah (23:23-25), Day of Purgation or

Atonement (23:26-32), Sukkoth (23:33-36, 39-43). There are signs of editorial activity.

The original list seems to have begun with Passover, since verse 4 begins with, “These

are the appointed feasts of the LORD, the holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at

the time appointed for them.” This is then reiterated in verse 37. Therefore, what comes

before and after this phrase appears to be added and will prove to be significant.16 Added

to this list of “appointed times” at the beginning is the Sabbath. Unlike the Priestly

version, now the Sabbath is a “holy convocation” like the rest of the festivals. Moreover,

unlike Num. 28:9-10, this section not only prohibits “laborious work” but all “work,”

distinguishing between the two. Like the Numbers version, Leviticus 23 prohibits

“laborious work” on the first and seventh days of the Feast Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:7-

8), Shavuot (Lev. 23:21), Rosh Hashanah (Lev. 23:25), and the first and eight days of

15
Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 8-45.
16
For a full discussion of the development of this chapter, see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 8-45.
 142

Sukkoth (Lev. 23:35-36). “Work,” however, is only prohibited on the Sabbath (Lev.

23:3) and on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:28, 30-31). In fact, the prohibition against

work on the Day of Atonement is more intense than anything else in this list:

And you shall do not work on this same day; for it is a day of atonement, to make
atonement for you before the LORD your God. For whoever is not afflicted on
this same day shall be cut off (‫ )ונכרתה‬from his people. And whoever does any
work on this same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. You
shall do no work: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your
dwellings. It shall be to you a Sabbath of solemn rest (‫)שבת שבתון‬, and you shall
afflict yourselves; on the ninth day of the month beginning at evening, from
evening to evening shall you keep your Sabbath (‫)תשבתו שבת‬. (Lev. 23:28-32)

Clearly one must rest and not do any work whatever on this day. The strong imperatives

and severe punishments resemble the Sabbath legislation found at the culmination of the

instructions for building the Tabernacle (Exod. 31:12-17). On the Sabbath and the Day

of Atonement, one must not do any work whatsoever (Exod. 31:14; Lev. 23:28, 30-31).

Whoever does work (or on the Day of Atonement does not afflict oneself) shall be “cut

off” from the people (Exod. 31:14; Lev. 23:29). Death is the punishment for profaning

the Sabbath (cf. Num. 15:32-36), and destruction for doing work on the Day of

Atonement.17 Only the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement are times that include

punishments for not properly celebrating the holiday. Both the Sabbath and the Day of

Atonement are called a ‫( שבת שבתון‬Exod. 31:15; Levi. 23:32) and, what is more, a

Sabbath. With the Sabbath the designation “Sabbath” is quite obvious, but it is also

17
Milgrom, Leviticus, 281, argues that the parity between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement breaks
down at this juncture, because the punishments for breaking the Sabbath include both karet and death,
whereas for the Day of Atonement it is just karet. At least in this volume, he does not consider that being
“destroyed” from among the people could be quite a severe penalty, acting as the equivalent death penalty
for Sabbath profanation. Being “cut off” may indicate banishment, not being buried with one’s ancestors,
and cutting off the family name. Destruction seems to be not only the removal of the person, but the
complete annihilation of the person—death on steroids.
 143

given to the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:32). The only other time called a “Sabbath” is

the seventh year, which is simply called a “Sabbath” throughout.

As noted above, the designation of “a Sabbath of solemn rest” (‫)שבת שבתון‬

intensifies the meaning of the Sabbath; thus, if the Sabbath is a day of rest, the ‫שבת שבתון‬

is a “Sabbath of solemn rest” or a “Sabbath of complete rest.” In general, the ending of –

‫ ון‬probably indicates some sort of abstraction of meaning.18 It tends to appear in contexts

with heightened prohibitions against work. Although when ‫ שבתון‬appears alone, it may

just intensify and somehow abstract the Sabbath in what it means to keep the Sabbath,

emphasizing doing no work, ‫ שבת שבתון‬in its usage acquires a superlative meaning,

separating out different levels of appointed times with regard of whether they are called a

‫( שבת שבתון‬most holy), ‫( שבתון‬holy), or do not receive any designation; thus, it could

generally mean something like a “Sabbath of Sabbaths.” The LXX translates the term as

σάββατα σαββάτων, literally “Sabbaths of Sabbaths.” It is a common term in the

Holiness School.19 Regarding the Sabbath day itself, Holiness School redactors use the

term quite often (Exod. 31:15; 35:2; Exod 16:23 (reversed); and Lev. 23:3).

Just as there is a distinction between the prohibition of laborious work and all

work, there is also a distinction made between days called a “Sabbath,” a “Sabbath of

solemn rest,” and a day of “solemn rest” with ‫ שבתון‬by itself. Appointed times indicated

by the term ‫ שבתון‬by itself are those that appear in the seventh month: Rosh Hashanah

(Lev. 23:24) and Sukkoth (Lev. 23:39). The designation of Sukkoth as a “solemn rest”

18
Cf. Andreasen, Old Testament Sabbath, 111-4.
19
Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 14-19, 35 n. 73, 122, 217-8.
 144

occurs in the added portion appended at the end of the list. Only the Sabbath and the Day

of Atonement are called a ‫( שבת שבתון‬Lev. 23:32), and they are both also “Sabbaths.”20

There is, therefore, a hierarchy of appointed times based upon the type of work

prohibited, the type of rest commanded, and the punishments threatened, with increased

holiness given to the Sabbath and the holidays of the seventh month, which at least

prohibit laborious work and are days of “solemn rest.” Among these the highest holiness

goes to the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement, which prohibit all work, are Sabbaths,

Sabbaths of solemn rest, and threaten ‫ כרת‬and death or destruction. The only other time

that matches these characteristics is the seventh year, the land’s Sabbath, which is also “a

Sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a Sabbath to the LORD” (Lev. 25:4), and punishes

with destruction and exile when not properly observed. The only difference between the

seventh day, the most important “Sabbath of Sabbaths” of the seventh month (Yom

Kippur), and the seventh year, is that the seventh day and the seventh year are each a

“Sabbath to the LORD,” “holy to the LORD,” or simply God saying it is “my Sabbaths”

(e.g., Exod. 31:13, 15; Lev. 25:4), whereas Yom Kippur is “your Sabbath” (Lev. 25:32),

although this latter term may match up with the command to keep the Sabbath because “it

is holy for you” (Exod. 31:14). In sum, there is a general equivalence of temporal

holiness attributed to the Sabbath day, Yom Kippur, and the Sabbath year based upon

terminology, level of work restriction, and degree of punishment.21

20
In addition, one might note the importance of the Sabbath in this chapter for figuring out the date of
Shavuot—seven Sabbaths after the day after the concluding Sabbath on the Feast of Unleavened Bread
(Lev. 23:15-22)—which is not mentioned in the parallel text in Num. 28:26-31.
21
While the Jubilee is also holy, it is not called a Sabbath or a ‫ שבת שבתון‬although it is proclaimed in the
fiftieth year on a ‫—שבת שבתון‬the Day of Atonement.
 145

Given the correlation between the sanctuary and the Sabbath, it is little surprise

that the day when the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies should become in the

Holiness School a Sabbath with all of the qualities that inhere in the Sabbath—being a

Sabbath, a ‫שבת שבתון‬, with absolutely no work, and severe punishments for breaching it.

This most important Sabbath of the year is the only time that High Priest can enter the

Holy of Holies to purge the sanctuary and the perhaps the people of their moral impurity

that has accumulated through the wanton, unrepented sins committed in the land.

The Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16

Turning to Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement’s imagery resembles the kuppuru

rite that took place on the fifth day of the akitu festival in Babylon. This was an

elimination rite, removing the impurity caused by demonic forces. Its rituals were more

elaborate than in the Day of Atonement ceremony, but included cleansing the temple of

Nabu, a scribal god, while he visited Babylon during the New Year in order to write

down the decrees of Marduk, who in the Enuma Elish had defeated the forces of chaos,

brought order, and therefore was enthroned and paid obeisance by all the gods.

The resemblances to the Hebrew version are remarkable:22 both versions mark the

transition to the New Year (Yom Kippur comes just after Rosh Hashanah, and can be

seen as its culmination);23 in both the priest rises before dawn, bathes, dresses in linen,

uses a censer and fire, and performs a sprinkling rite on the sanctuary; both have a priest

smearing (in Akkadian, kuppuru) the blood of a slaughtered animal to purge highly

22
For a description of the Babylonian rite, see ANET 331-4.
23
Milgrom, Leviticus, 165.
 146

magnetic impurity from the sanctuary; both remove the sacrificial animal outside the

city/camp and cause impurity to anyone who touches it; and both have a confession of sin

and penitence from the king or high priest. Finally, both use the same root to describe the

ritual: kippur and kuppuru. In Akkadian, the term is always used in ritual contexts,

while in Hebrew it can be used more generally to refer to the assuaging of divine or

human anger. Yet, again, the Priestly tradition uses the term much more technically.

P/H, Ezekiel 40-48, and the Chronicler always use the term to refer to a ritual act

performed by a priest, particularly the purging of the sanctuary, the temple, the altar, the

land, houses, and people. Therefore, as with a great deal of terminology, P/H takes a

widely used term and gives it a precise, technical meaning.

These similarities highlight some differences: the Hebrew ritual uses a scapegoat;

an elimination ritual that likely survives from before any Babylonian influence.24 The

Babylonian version removed demonic impurity, but the Priestly source, having removed

all remnants of demonic forces, purges the moral impurity of the Israelites themselves.

Finally, while the Babylonian king professed his lack of sins, the Israelites confessed

their sins (Lev. 16:21). These similarities and differences suggest that the Priestly

traditions emulated the well-known Babylonian ritual and adapted it to Israelite use.25

Unlike the Babylonian kuppuru, Leviticus 16 makes clear that the sins of the

people have affected the holy place, making it impure, and therefore it must be purged:

24
Milgrom, Leviticus, 164, 166-7.
25
Given all the similarities, Milgrom still sees no reason to doubt the antiquity of the Priestly purgation
ritual (Leviticus, 165), while Sparks sees this as best fitting the exilic context, where the ritual would have
been observed first-hand, especially since the god, Nabu, in whose temple the ritual is performed, only
became prominent in the Neo-Babylonian period; the combination of the resemblances between the Priestly
source and the Enuma Elish and the Day of Atonement with the kuppuru, strongly suggests a Babylonian
context; see Sparks, “Enuma Elish and Priestly Mimesis,” 634-5, 645-6. The Persians likewise adapted the
Babylonian Akitu ritual in Persepolis; see J.M Fennelly, "The Persepolis Ritual," BA 43 (1980): 135-62.
 147

Thus he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities
(‫ )מטמאת‬of the people of Israel, and because of their transgressions, all of their
sins; and so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which abides with them in the
midst of their impurities (‫)טמאתם‬. (Lev. 16:16)

The terminology for “impurity” is the same root for the verb “to defile.” The blood

purges the most holy place and the tent as a whole of the “defilements” that have

accumulated. The High Priest puts the blood of the bull and the goat on the horns of the

altar, and sprinkles it with his finger to cleanse and sanctify/hallow it, restoring its

holiness (Lev. 16:18-19). He then transfers the iniquities of the people onto the head of

the goat of Azazel, which carries them out into the wilderness. Finally, he offers a whole

burnt offering to atone for (or purge) himself and the people as a whole (Lev. 16:24-25),

and the bull and goat for the sin offerings are taken outside the camp and burned.

Appended to these instructions are the characteristics of the Day of Atonement

laid out by the Holiness School (Lev. 23): self-affliction, doing no work whatsoever, and

it is a ‫( ת שבתוןשב‬Lev. 16:29-31). This section is clearly appended: the first section

speaks exclusively of Aaron, and this section makes sure one understands this indicates

the successive priests consecrated in his place (16:32).

Given that Lev. 16:16 twice states that it is being purged of the “impurities,” it is

noteworthy that the parallel portion for the people lacks this term. Observing this,

Klawans doubts that this ceremony purges the people of their impurity, and it definitely

does not purge the land—just the sanctuary.26 In short, Klawans argues that the sanctuary

is purged of “the impurity and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins” (Lev.

16:16) whereas the people are purged “of the iniquities and transgressions of the

Israelites, whatever their sins” (Lev. 16:21). The people are purged of only their sins, but

26
Klawans, Sin and Impurity, 30, 174 n. 64
 148

not of their “impurity.” Based upon this logic, should we assume that the sanctuary is

also not purged of “iniquities”? Or are iniquities and impurity equated in the parallelism?

The answer depends upon whether one thinks the parallelism is meant to highlight the

differentiation or to suggest equivalence. If the blood is meant to remove defilement, it is

noteworthy that it is never sprinkled on the people in this ceremony, although the

sacrifice itself purges their sins. There, in fact, might be a differentiation here in the

relative terms of purgation, but I am not sure if it is as clear as Klawans makes it.

Moreover, the Holiness School’s appendix to the section reinterprets the disparity

with an equivalence of the purges. In a summary statement, the text reads, “he shall

make atonement for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting

and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the

assembly. And this shall be an everlasting statute for you, that atonement may be made

for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins” (Lev. 16:33-34). This

passage equates the purgation of the sanctuary, the tent, the altar, the priests, and the

assembly on equal terms. Although Klawans’s position is a possibility, I am not as sure

as he is that the people are not as equally purged as the sanctuary and its sancta are when

considering the final portion of the passage. We agree, however, that the land is not

purged in this ceremony—it requires either the land’s Sabbath or exile to be restored.

These high priestly actions also recall and reenact Sinai in the Priestly tradition.

As discussed, the Tabernacle acts as a portable Sinai.27 When the high priest takes the

censer from the incense altar, he creates a cloud of incense that covers the mercy seat

within the holy of holies (Lev. 16:13). This reenacts Moses entering the cloud that

27
Milgrom, Leviticus, 89, 170, 281.
 149

covered Mt. Sinai (Exod. 24:15-18).28 This cloud corresponds to the “Glory” of the

LORD, signifying the divine presence. This cloud of glory then “covered” the tent of

meeting with the “glory” of the LORD filling the Tabernacle (Exod. 40:34-38).

Moreover, when instructing Moses how to build the ark and mercy seat, God tells him,

“There I will meet you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim

that are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you of all that I will give you in

commandment for the people of Israel” (Exod. 40:22). Thus, on Yom Kippur the high

priest recreates the cloud of Glory that signifies God’s Presence with incense and coals,

which “covers” the mercy seat to approach God on God’s throne.

The Day of Atonement, therefore, represents sacred space-time at its greatest

concentration, bringing the Sanctuary and the Sabbath together in an intensified way.

The ceremony is a Sabbath of Sabbaths with the same characteristics given to it as a

Sabbath, and is the only day when the high priest can enter the holy of holies. This most

holy time restores the sanctuary to its original state of holiness, correcting its defilement,

just as the land’s Sabbath rejuvenates and restores the land. Thus, sacred times

designated as Sabbaths in the Priestly tradition (and especially the Holiness School)

restore sacred spaces and the people. The Sabbath, the Day of Atonement, and the land’s

Sabbath all restore things to an original state of purity. The weekly Sabbath in the

Priestly tradition restores the individual back to the restful state in imitation of God at

creation, the Day of Atonement restores the sanctuary back to its original state of

holiness, and the land’s Sabbath restores the land to its original uncultivated state.

28
Milgrom, Leviticus, 170, 281.
 150

Chapter 5: Imitating Divine Holiness through the Sabbath and the Sanctuary

In his most recent book, Klawans argues that the temple and its cult in priestly

thought form a symbolic system with two organizing principles: to imitate god and to

attract and maintain the divine presence.1 Yet something is missing in Klawans’s

symbolic system: the Sabbath. Given the prevalent interrelationships established

between the sanctuary and the Sabbath in the priestly tradition, it is not surprising that

these aspects of divine imitation and attraction also apply to keeping the Sabbath.

Maintenance has already been discussed through its opposite—the departing of

the divine presence through moral impurity attached to the sanctuary and not keeping the

Sabbath and the land’s Sabbath. When bringing the Sabbath and the sanctuary together,

the Holiness school also introduces the element of imitating God. One imitates God’s

holiness that inheres in the holy Name, the holy sanctuary, and the holy Sabbath. By

becoming holy and maintaining one’s own holiness, one imitates God’s holiness.

Moreover, in the Exodus passage that brings together the Sabbath and the sanctuary, by

building the Tabernacle itself, which is a microcosm of creation and follows the very

pattern of the priestly creation story, one imitates God’s creation of the cosmos. At the

same time, given the ancient Near Eastern pattern, the construction of the Tabernacle

1
Klawans ׁ(Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 49-73) makes a three-fold argument for imitating god: 1)
ritual purity through separation from sex and death, procreation and death being those aspects of humanity
that are the least divine—one imitates god in order to approach god, 2) domestication of animals to
sacrifice (which I find the most questionable part of his argument), and 3) imitating god in and through
god’s sanctuary. In order to discuss the maintenance of the divine presence, Klawans focuses on the tamid
offering. The issue of defilement can also explain this process: one must avoid defiling acts and purge the
defilement of the sanctuary in order to maintain the divine presence, and, in fact, be holy as god is holy.
 151

completes creation.2 This culminates in the Sabbath, which explicitly imitates God’s

seventh-day rest. The weekly pattern of working for six days and resting on the seventh

itself imitates the divine pattern creating (for six days) and resting (on the seventh).

Especially in the Holiness School, God enjoins the Israelites to imitate God’s own

holiness. In a refrain with implications that echo throughout Leviticus 17-26, God

commands the Israelites to be holy as he is holy:

Say to all the congregation of the people of Israel, You shall be holy; for I the
LORD your God am holy. (Lev. 19:2)

Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am the LORD your God.
Keep my statutes and do them; I am the LORD who sanctify you. (Lev. 20:7-8)

You shall be holy to me; for I the LORD am holy, and have separated you from
the peoples, that you should be mine. (Lev. 20:26)

In these divine exhortations to imitate the divine, there are two ways in which holiness is

developed and maintained: both God and the people create and maintain the people’s

holiness. God’s part is straightforward: 1) God has brought the people out of Egypt,

separating them from everyone else to be his own, and that which belongs to God is holy

and 2) God sanctifies them (20:8; 22:16, 32).

Separation is key for the priestly conception of holiness. Separation is how order

came out of chaos (Gen. 1:4, 7, 14, 18). Israel, likewise, is separated from the nations,

continuing the process of separation within the cosmos.3 Throughout, God speaks of

bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, separating them from the nations thereby and

claiming them as his own (Lev. 18:1-5; 19:36; 20:24, 26; 22:33; 25:38, 55; 26:12-13, 45).

Separation and sanctification occur in tandem. The holy is whatever is separated out for

2
George, Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space, 189.
3
Milgrom, Leviticus, 179-81, 258-9.
 152

God. Holy time in the Sabbath and festivals is separated out from regular time. The

Sabbath is often called holy, and, in fact, is holy to the LORD: it is time separated out,

holy, and belongs to the LORD (e.g. Gen. 2:3; Exod. 20:8-11; 31:14-15; 35:2).4 The

same is also true with holy space (the sanctuary), which is separated out from other

space, being consecrated to the LORD, and the holy land separated and distinct from all

foreign lands in its holiness. Finally, the holy people is sanctified and separated out from

all other people, as is the priesthood in the midst of the people (Lev. 21:1-9, esp. vv. 6-8).

If holiness is attained through separation, it is also maintained through continued

separation. This is the role of the people. After the people have been sanctified and

separated out from the nations by the LORD, they must maintain their own separation

from the nations (e.g. Lev. 18:1-5), in turn maintaining their holiness. They do this by

obeying all of the statutes and ordinances contained in the priestly legislation. Indeed,

the commands to be holy as god and the reminders that God has sanctified them by

separating them from the nations constitute the purpose for the Priestly system. The

maintenance of holiness in imitation of God’s holiness is epitomized in Leviticus 19-20,

but encompasses the entire Holiness School, particularly maintaining sexual purity

(avoiding incest and prostitution), avoiding idolatry (offering children to Molech,

divination, setting up idols), and keeping sacred or appointed times.

The priesthood attains a higher degree of holiness in imitation of God’s holiness

by avoiding corpses (except for family members), not tonsuring, not cutting themselves,

and not marrying a prostitute or divorced woman (Lev. 21:6-8). The high priest attains

4
Cf. the non-Priestly traditions which do not emphasize the holiness of the Sabbath as much and do not
relate it to imitation (e.g. Exod. 23:12). Deut. 5:12-14 mentions the Sabbath’s holiness, but downplays
imitative issues (see more below).
 153

an even greater degree of holiness by avoiding all corpses (even dead family members)

and not leaving the holy sanctuary. He must marry a virgin, and not a harlot, divorced

woman, or a widow, “for I am the LORD who sanctify him” (Lev. 21:15, cf. 21:23). Nor

can the high priest have any physical blemish to approach the LORD. Thus, the people

are separated out and maintain their separation from the nations by following the

Holiness School’s ordinances, while the priests and the high priest respectively attain

higher degrees of holiness, more closely imitating God’s holiness.5

While God sanctifies the people and they maintain this sanctification, the people

imitate God’s holiness through the sanctuary and the Sabbath. For the priests to approach

the altar and the high priest to approach the inner sanctum, they must be ritually pure,

particularly avoiding contact with corpses. All who approach the sanctuary to offer

sacrifices (the people) and those who officiate at those sacrifices (the priests) as well as

the sacrifices themselves all must be ritually pure. One must avoid the defiling

substances in Leviticus 11-15 and Numbers 19, which one can categorize under death-

avoidance and sex-avoidance, to maintain ritual purity and to sacrifice at the sanctuary.6

This emphasis on avoiding sex and death to attain the purity to approach God in the

5
Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 180-86; Milgrom, Leviticus, 106-8, 121, 212-5, 219; Klawans, Purity,
Sacrifice, and the Temple, 56-8.
6
Jacob Milgrom, in all of his Leviticus commentaries, claims that death-avoidance covers the entirety of
ritual purity laws, considering loss of sexual fluids (vaginal blood, semen), which are representations of
life, as the loss of life, i.e., death; thus, death-related issues are ritually defiling. Milgrom also places the
food laws, especially with the blood avoidance issue, under this category. As Klawans (Purity, Sacrifice,
and the Temple, 57-8) counters, however, Milgrom’s broad theory does not explain why all sexual acts are
always ritually defiling. It makes sense in non-sexual discharges—there life is surely lost—but not in
sexual acts that lead to life. Moreover, if death-avoidance were the whole purpose of ritual purity, this
creates a profound paradox in which the sacrificial system enacts the opposite, killing animals within the
sanctuary. Moreover, only the fluids that flow from the genitals are defiling—even blood flowing from the
veins of a dying person does not defile. Sex and death, therefore, each explain part of the system by itself,
and must be considered in tandem (without one dominating) to explain the temple’s sacrificial purity
system comprehensively.
 154

temple highlights the differences between humans and god. Because God is eternal, God

does not die. Moreover, because at least in the Priestly tradition God does not have a

consort, God does not have sex. These qualities that define the mortal condition,

therefore, distinguish humans from God, and one must leave behind the mortal realm in

order to approach God, avoiding sex and death. Ritual purity through avoiding sex and

death was a form of divine imitation, and this imitatio dei was, therefore, the prerequisite

to enter God’s holy sanctuary—one becomes godlike to approach god.7

Separation leads to a paradoxical discovery: “mixture” belongs to the divine

realm. God “separated” the waters in creation, and separated times (the Sabbath), places

(the sanctuary), and people (Israelites) to be holy. One would therefore expect mixture to

be a symbol of disorder, reversion to the primordial chaos, but once these demarcated

times, areas, and people are set apart, mixtures appear in their holiest parts. Mixture is

reserved for the most holy, which is concurrently separated from everything else.
7
Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 57-8; Tikva Frymer-Kensky, "Pollution, Purification, and
Purgation in Biblical Israel," The Word Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in
Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O'Connor (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
1983) 401; Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of Goddesses: Women, Culture and the Biblical
Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1992) 189; David P. Wright, "Unclean
and Clearn (OT)," Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, Vol. 6 (New York: Doubleday,
1992) 739. Another aspect of sacrifice that Klawans draws out as divine imitation is the selection, breeding,
tending, or, in short, the process of domestication of animals used for sacrificial purposes, which reflects
the view of God as a shepherd, with the Israelites as the sheep. The use of this imagery is very extensive
(see Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 60, 267 n. 59, for citations). It is interesting to note,
however, that the imagery is most prevalent in hymnic (Psalms) and prophetic works (Ezekiel, Jeremiah,
Isaiah, Micah, Hosea, and Zechariah), with only one citation from the Pentateuch (Gen. 49:24). As
Klawans notes, the sheer volume of references demands that one take this metaphor seriously; however,
with only one representative from the priestly tradition (Ezekiel) using the imagery extensively, it is
difficult to connect the rather general pastoral imagery of God as shepherd with sacrifice and the temple
more specifically (since the two conceptions occur in separate corpora). A thorough examination of
Ezekiel’s usage of this imagery, however, may provide a way forward in this direction. Klawans also
repeats much of this information in a separate section of imitation within the sanctuary—issue of selecting
an animal for sacrifice as an act of divine imitation—but focusing on the process as described in Lev. 1:3-9
(Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 62-66). In this manner, the two sections on the shepherd in hymns and
prophetic sources (58-62) and selection of sacrificial animals in Leviticus (62-66) must be viewed in
tandem, really representing one idea of selection as divine imitation. Particularly the issue of power over
life and death and the ability to distinguish between the holy and the common are important concepts that
reflect divine imitation (see Lev. 10:10; 11:46-7; cf. Ezek. 22:26).
 155

For example, the most holy spot in the entire sanctuary is the cherub throne

(‫)כפרת‬, and the cherubim were hybrid beasts (see e.g., Ezek. 1:5-11). In the Tabernacle,

the lower cover and the veil were a mixture of linen and wool interweaving scarlet, blue,

and purple threads (Exod. 26:1, 31). Moreover, the Tabernacle’s cloth cover and the veil

had cherubim embroidered on them. This color mixture is imitated by humans,

particularly the priesthood; the dress of the human officiants imitates the sanctuary itself.

For example, the high priest’s garments of the ephod, breastplate, and belt contain the

same mixture of the veil and the cloth cover (Exod. 28:5-8, 15; 39:29), with the

additional element of gold thread and the elimination of the cherubim embroidery (the

ephod is embroidered with pomegranates instead; Exod. 39:24). The regular priestly

garments, however, limit the mixture to the belt, which also has embroidery, but of what

is not indicated (Exod. 39:29). Finally, the Israelites, as the holy people, are allowed one

blue thread in their linen tassels to remember the commandments (Num. 15:39).8

Thus mixtures indicate what is consecrated to God. Mixture was the prerogative

of the sacred sphere, and any allowance for such mixture indicates a graded holiness that

imitates the holiness of the Tabernacle and the divine officiants—the cherubim.9

8
The color blue appears to have the greatest importance, always being listed first in the mixtures. The
uppermost cover of the ark and the high priest’s robe are “pure blue” (Exod. 28:31; 39:22; Num. 4:6), and
blue covers all of the sancta when the desert shrine is taken down and travels in the wilderness, while the
ark itself is covered with the sacred veil (Num. 4:5-11)
9
Milgrom, Leviticus, 236-8. Milgrom also suggests that the priests, especially the high priest, wearing a
garment of mixed seeds symbolically became cherubim, beasts of mixed origin close to God, making them
qualified to serve before God. Since the sculpted and embroidered images of the cherubim were not visible
to the laity, they could not become objects of worship. He writes, “Mixtures, then, characterize the
holiness of the sacred sphere and those authorized to enter or serve in it. The laity, however, dare not cross
its boundary. No differently from the cherub guarding the entrance to the sacred garden, armed Levites
guard the entrance to the sacred enclosure, ‘and the unauthorized encroacher will be put to death’ (Num.
1:51; 3:10, 38; 18:7)” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 238).
 156

Finally, the progression of the instructions to build and the subsequent building of

the Tabernacle follow the same step-by-step pattern as God creating and completing the

universe; by building the microcosmic sanctuary, they imitate God’s cosmic creation.

The instructions reflect God’s “creation” and the actual building reflect its “completion.”

Building the sanctuary, attaining the purity to approach the sanctuary to sacrifice by

separating from sex and death, indicate that to build the sanctuary and maintain its cult,

the people, and particularly the priests, imitate god.

This form of divine imitation of the sanctuary, particularly in the instructions and

building of the Tabernacle (Exodus 25-31; 35-40), is borne out by the commands

culminating in the Sabbath just as the Genesis account does. Just as God worked for six

days and rested on the seventh, so do the instructions for the Tabernacle and its

subsequent construction occur in six steps culminating in the Sabbath and the filling of

the Tabernacle with the divine presence. This pattern of creation (cosmos/sanctuary) and

rest (God’s/People’s) is then repeated every week of working and resting. Through the

Sabbath, divine imitation is not limited to the one-time building of the Tabernacle, but is

ongoing. Through the Sabbath, the God’s presence and holinesss is not limited to the

sacred enclosure, but is available anywhere. Additionally, the Sabbath’s holiness is both

proclaimed by God and maintained by the people: they imitate God’s hallowing of the

Sabbath, and they imitate God’s actual Sabbath rest.

After completing creation, the priestly version of creation says, “So God blessed

the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had

done in creation” (Gen. 2:3). Thus, God worked, rested, and made the seventh day holy.

In the priestly version of the Decalogue, the people imitate God’s cosmogonic rest:
 157

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all
your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to YHWH your God; in it you shall
not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your
maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six
days YHWH made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested
the seventh day and hallowed it. (Exod. 20:8-11)

Most of this text is paralleled in Deuteronomy verbatim, except for the command to

“remember” rather than to “observe.” One even has the listing of all the people who are

to “remember” and “hallow” the Sabbath; namely, hearers and their dependents,

including the cattle.10 Any direct link to social responsibility or allowing one’s

dependents to rest because it is good for them or because one was also a servant in Egypt

is attenuated however. For example, appended at the list of dependents, in Deuteronomy,

one reads, “that your manservant and maidservant may rest as well as you” (Deut. 5:14),

yet in Exodus this is absent. The list simply enumerates who must rest or upon whom the

commandment is incumbent. The reason why one rests is also entirely different from

Deuteronomy.11 One rests on the seventh day of the week, “for in six days the Lord

10
Carol Meyers, Exodus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 132, notes the absence of
“wife,” but suggests the she is implied.
11
In general, the non-Priestly sources do not emphasize the Sabbath’s holiness or, if they do, do not
connect it to divine imitation. Exod. 23:12-13 just mentions the Sabbath as a day of refreshment for
everyone, including servants and animal labor (e.g. oxen). The Deuteronomic Decalogue takes this,
however, and emphasizes the holiness in conjunction, but never relates it to divine imitations. In Deut.
5:12-15, the command to “observe the Sabbath day” is by far the lengthiest of the “ten commandments”
and is longer than its counterpart in Exodus. The reason given for observing the Sabbath is that it is a good
thing to do. From an elite male perspective, the Sabbath is incumbent upon such males who are then
commanded to allow all dependents, whether children, slaves/servants, resident aliens, and even animals a
chance to rest as well. In fact, one might read this commandment as a measure to keep taskmasters from
overworking such dependents, making sure they have a day of rejuvenation (Meyers, Exodus, 132).
Andreasen also highlights the anthropological, sociological, psychological, and humanitarian concerns of
the Deuteronomy Decalogue, because of spreading the concern for rest and refreshment to the entire
household, including animals. This social-humanitarian concern probably represents one of the oldest
aspects of the Sabbath in the Pentateuch (Andreasen, Old Testament Sabbath, 91, 130-133; Yang, Jesus and
the Sabbath, 27, 29-30; Dennis MacDonald ("A Response to R. Goldenberg and D.J. Harrington, S.J.," The
Sabbath in Jewish adn Christian Traditions, ed. Tamara C. Eskanazi, Daniel J. Harrington and William
Shea (New York: Crossroad, 1991) 57-61) argues that the meanings of the Sabbath developed in the
following way: “(1) rest for human welfare, (2) holiness for honoring God, and (3) covenantal fidelity for
distinguishing a social entity.”).
 158

made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day and

hallowed it” (Exod. 20:11). Resting on the Sabbath, therefore, is an act of imitation. One

rests on the Sabbath and keeps it holy because God both rested on the seventh day and

hallowed it. Humans both rest and hallow just as God did.

This same reasoning is found in the discussion of the Tabernacle and Sabbath,

which mirrors the creation and Sabbath, but becomes a little more complicated:

Say to the people of Israel, “you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign
between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the
LORD, sanctify you. You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you;
everyone who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it, that
soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the
seventh is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work
on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep
the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual
covenant. It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days
the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was
refreshed.” (Exod. 31:13-17)

The Sabbath is a sign and a metonym for the covenant.12 Tying the Sabbath to the

covenant partially accounts for the severe punishments for its breach:13 by breaking the

In the last part of the passage, allowing one’s dependents, especially slaves/servants and
sojourners a day of rest is tied to remembering the Exodus story. The Sabbath becomes a time to reflect
upon the collective past experience, or, in other terms, to engage in collective imaginary communal origins
and the divine engagement in such a story. In that sense, this justification for observing the Sabbath in
terms of remembering that “you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you
out thence with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm,” almost seems more appropriate for Exodus.
Nonetheless, remembering that one was (or through the foundational story of the Exodus, one’s ancestors
or fictive kin were) in slavery in Egypt allows one to identify with one’s dependents. Providing a measure
for allowing one’s own rest and dependents’ rest, because it just makes good sense, and because God led
the addressees out of Egypt, constitute two interconnected justifications for Sabbath rest in Deuteronomy.
12
This is the only passage in the Pentateuch that explicitly makes this connection between Sabbath and
covenant, and, as such, it contains loaded words and phrases the recur throughout the Torah that relate to
other covenantal signs, such as “throughout your generations.” On the other hand, since the Sabbath
commandment is part of the Decalogue, the Sabbath might already carry covenantal implications. The
punishment for breaking the Sabbath is also heightened: it is death for those who profane it and social
death for those who work on it. In this passage, though, not only did God rest, but God was refreshed and,
perhaps, needed refreshing. This additional nuance furthers the identification between God and people, a
more intricate tie bound with covenantal terminology, making the refreshment of the Sabbath a more
explicit act of imitatio dei.
 159

sign of the covenant, one breaks the covenant, leading to ‫ כרת‬and death. While the text

does not explicitly say that they “hallow” the Sabbath, it makes a parallel between

Israelites and God by saying that it is both “holy for you” and “holy to the LORD.” In

this context, the Sabbath becomes the means by which God sanctifies the people and the

people maintain that sanctification: keeping the Sabbath is an eternal sign of both God

sanctifying the people and God’s own working and resting. It is a sign inherent in

creation and in the covenant that imitates God’s holiness and maintains the people’s

holiness through the weekly repetition of work and rest.

There is a reciprocal relationship involved in imitating God’s holiness: God

sanctifies and separates, and one must maintain this sanctification and separation. Not

only does God “hallow” or sanctify the Israelites, but the Israelites must sanctify

themselves by following the divine commands. Then they can be holy as the LORD is

holy. The sustained imitation of God’s holiness occurs not just through the ordinances

laid out, but through the separated, consecrated, and hallowed dimensions of God’s

holiness: the Sabbath in time and the sanctuary in space. One imitates God’s creation

and rest by also working and resting in the same pattern. More specifically, Exod. 25-31

and 35-40 imitates God’s creative acts through the same step-by-step pattern of the

instructions and subsequent construction of the Tabernacle, which, as in the creation

account, is Sabbath-focused (Exod. 31:12-17; 35:2-3). This culminating act of imitation

is most explicit, in which one rests on and hallows the Sabbath because God rested on

and hallowed the seventh day, and as an interactive conduit of sanctification as a sign of

the covenant and a sign of God’s sanctification, heightening the importance of the

13
The other part is the equivalence to the sanctuary, which also has severe punishments for profaning or
desecrating.
 160

Sabbath in the relationship between God and God’s people, whom he separated out. One

imitates God’s holiness through his holy place, his holy time, and his general statutes and

commandments, the triad of sanctuary, Sabbath, and covenant.

 161

Conclusion to Part 1: The Priestly Holiness Gradient of Space, Time, and Person

The Priestly tradition (Ezekiel, P, and H) inaugurated priestly sacred space-time

through intricately intertwining and coordinating the sacred time of the Sabbath and the

sacred space of the sanctuary from succinct equivalences, which equate sanctity and

profanation of the Sabbath and the sanctuary in Ezekiel and the Holiness School, to the

elaborate Sabbath-focused instructions and building of the Tabernacle in Exodus. The

priestly tradent creatively placed pre-Priestly elements concerning the Sabbath, the

sanctuary, and God’s Presence into dialogue with the narrative pattern found in the

Enuma Elish, transforming both in the process. Most importantly, this dialogue turned

the rest of the sanctuary into the Sabbath, introducing a dynamic interrelationship

between the Sabbath and the sanctuary. Both the pithy statements and the broader

emulated ancient Near Eastern cosmogonic narrative heightened the holiness of the

Sabbath to mirror the sanctuary, making the equivalence of God’s resting place and

dwelling place into the equivalence in holiness of God’s Sabbath and God’s Tabernacle.

Additionally, the Exodus account and Ezekiel present an ideal temple revealed in

direct discourse: the ‫ תבנית‬of Exodus 25:9 and 40 and the measured temple in Ezekiel 40-

48. Both accounts begin with a revelation of an idealized sanctuary, then the Glory of the

LORD fills that sanctuary, and finally the Glory of the LORD issues cultic instruction

from within the sanctuary. In this, Ezekiel’s vision and the above pattern provided the

mould through which the Priestly tradents would recast their traditional cultic traditions.
 162

Thus the Priestly tradents reformulated the cultic tradition in dialogue with the ancient

Near Eastern narrative pattern of creation, rest, temple-building, and enthronement, and

Ezekiel’s vision of a divinely revealed sanctuary (temple-building), the filling of that

sanctuary (enthronement), and cultic requirements. The last two elements of the first

pattern (Enuma Elish) and the first two elements of the second pattern (Ezekiel) overlap.

Moreover, Ezekiel brings the Sabbath and the sanctuary together just as the

Priestly tradents of the Pentateuch, particularly the Holiness School, but did not put them

into the larger cosmogonic pattern that the Priestly tradents did. Instead, it resembles the

succinct statements and the equivalence of the terms in holiness and profanation and dire

punishments of the Holiness School. Ezekiel resembles the Holiness School conceptually

and linguistically (e.g., Leviticus 18-22, 26; Ezekiel 20, 22).

Finally, these intersections of holy time and holy space had further extensions and

implications, with the sanctuary and the Sabbath being extended into the land and its

Sabbath. In addition to linguistic correspondences, conceptually throughout the degree to

which something could be profaned or defiled (and the subsequent consequences thereof)

have been indicators of its holiness; the holier something is, the greater potential it has of

being profaned. The triad of the Name, sanctuary, and Sabbath had holy properties that

could be profaned. When extended to the land, the sanctuary and the land can be defiled,

and each has its own type of Sabbath that restores it: the Day of Atonement for the

sanctuary and the land’s Sabbath for the land. Failure to revere the sanctuary and by

extension the land and observe the Sabbath leads to the same result: destruction and

exile, particularly the references to being “vomited” out of the land, destroyed by one’s

enemies, and scattered among the nations (especially Leviticus 18, 26).
 163

Exile as the Historical Context of the Holiness School

Although stories like the Enuma Elish were available throughout the ancient Near

East for a long period of time, the exile of the elite and their retainers to Babylon during

and after the destruction of Jerusalem provides a particularly conspicuous time of

heightened engagement with Babylonian mythic patterns and Babylonian rites of

purgation, the kuppuru on the fifth day of the akitu.1 Although the Sabbath’s holiness

may have already been established (in Deuteronomy, for example), the increased

importance of the Sabbath to maintain Judahite identity in a foreign land would have

provided perfect conditions to nurture further reflection on the holiness of the Sabbath,

providing the reasoning for dire punishments of death and exile for its profanation.

Both Ezekiel and the Holiness School formulated the equation of spatial and

temporal holiness in exilic retrospect. The mobility of the sacred shrine, which allowed

God’s presence to be present anywhere, and the heightening of the holiness of the

Sabbath to the level of the sanctuary, which allowed God’s holiness previously associated

with the sacred enclosure alone to be experienced by any covenanted person every week,

had their greatest poignancy in the temple-less situation. The Sabbath, thereby, became

the temporal access to the sanctuary’s holiness.

The preoccupation with the profanation of the sanctuary, the Sabbath, and the

divine name appears most prevalently in sources dated during and after the Babylonian

Exile with very few occurrences in sources dated before, strongly indicating the

profanation of the sanctuary, the Sabbath, and the neglect of the land’s Sabbath were

1
See Sparks, “Enûma Elish and Priestly Mimesis,” 642-8.
 164

exilic concerns. The Holiness School’s warnings resemble the destruction events and

Ezekiel’s oracles.2 These retrospective moments strongly point to an exilic situation for

the activity of the Holiness School, even if they incorporated older materials. It provided

the priestly explanation of their current distressful predicament.

The larger narrative pattern, the dynamic equivalence of the sanctuary and the

Sabbath, heightening the Sabbath’s holiness, the heightened concern with profanation,

and the retrospective passages of failure to observe the Sabbath and the land’s Sabbath

collude to make the Babylonian Exile the most fitting context for the Priestly dialogue

between traditional Judahite materials and Babylonian narrative and ritual patterns as

well as the ongoing exchange between those responsible for P, H, and Ezekiel.

The Holiness Gradient

The development of holy time (Sabbath) and holy space (sanctuary) as

expressions of God’s holiness (Name), which in turn is imitated by the holy people

through keeping the ordinances, revering the sanctuary, and keeping the Sabbath, reveal a

gradient of holiness that links up in terms of place, time (see chart below).3 The gradient

2
Moreover, the three-tiered altar described in Ezekiel’s ideal temple (43:13-27) resembles a ziggurat; de
Vaux, Ancient Israel, 281-2, 412. There is the possibility that the events reflect the earlier eighth-century
Assyrian invasion of the Northern Kingdom, with these chapters providing warnings for the Southern
Kingdom. Ezekiel, then, would be a further reflection of the fruition of such events actually occurring
under the Babylonians.
3
Cf. the holiness gradient created by Ezek. 40-48 as discussed in Smith, To Take Place, 56-62; cf. George
(Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space, 105-125), who outlines different authors’ discussion of the gradient or
spectrum of holiness in sacred space. He, in fact, finds that although “holiness” is a native term to discuss
the taxonomy of sacra, it is, for that reason, insufficient to analyze the taxa that undergird the divisions of
holiness in space, time, and person. Instead, he argues that the underlying taxonomy that generates the
holiness gradient is based upon divisions among people—the congregation, the priesthood by descent, and
finally the hereditary succession of the high priest. This, however, still operates on the same principle of
separation that generates other dimensions of holiness in terms of space and time. While the holiness
gradient may have something “behind” it, its expression involves coordinated gradations in terms of space,
time, and people and, in fact, the holiness of each depends upon the other. As such, I find it difficult to
 165

of holy spacetime gravitates around and imitates God’s holiness, increasing in intensity

as measured by its increasing holiness the closer approaches the proximity of God. This

gradient places the most holy place (the sanctuary, especially the Holy of Holies), the

Sabbath and the Day of Atonement (which have the exact same qualities, both being

called a Sabbath, a ‫ שבת שבתון‬with restrictions of no work, and stringent punishments for

failure to keep it). The land’s Sabbath has these same qualities without the restriction of

no work (although there would be no work in the fields) and with the punishments

magnified to a corporate level. The most holy times have restorative qualities as

Sabbaths: the Sabbath day restoring the individual in imitation of divine rest, the Day of

Atonement restoring the sanctuary, and the land’s Sabbath restoring the land.

The holiness is interdependent: the high priest is the most holy person because he

enters the most holy place on the most holy day; the Day of Atonement as the most holy

day because that is when the most holy person enters the most holy place; the holy of

holies is the most sacred space because only the most holy person can enter it on the most

holy day. There is also interaction between levels: the holy people as a whole must keep

all the sacred times and revere the holy place, although they do not have full access to it.

Keeping the Sabbath, with its equivalent holiness to the sanctuary, allows the people to

have access to holiness that is otherwise the prerogative of priests, especially the high

priest. All the people, therefore, must remain holy, observing holy times in order to keep

the holy places (and themselves) undefiled.

accept that only one of the mutually interdependent elements, the separations of people, generates the entire
expressed gradient system.
 166

These Priestly foundations of the interrelationship of sacred space and sacred time

through the Sabbath and the Tabernacle are integral to understanding the Songs of the

Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Both works would reflect upon Moses’

vision on Sinai to realign the Sabbath and the sanctuary, but to resituate them in the

heavenly realm, making the Sabbath the temporal access to the heavenly Tabernacle and

making them equivalent in heavenliness. By this realignment and reinterpretation of the

pattern of the Tabernacle that Moses saw as the heavenly realm, they would enter the

heavenly archetype itself.

Holy Space Holy Time Holy People

Sanctuary: Sabbath, Day of High Priest (administers in

Holy of Holies (Ark and
‫כפרת‬-throne with
cherubim)
Holy Place (Incense
Altar and Menorah)
Altar
Land
Outside Israel
Atonement, and Land’s
Sabbath (Sabbath,
‫שבת שבתון‬, no work, and
punishment of
death/destruction and ‫)כרת‬
Other Seventh-Month
festivals: Rosh Hashanah
and Sukkoth (‫שבתון‬, no
laborious work)
Remaining Festivals (no
laborious work)
Profane Time
the Holy of Holies on the
Day of Atonement; rest of
year administers incense
altar and Menorah;
breastpiece, ephod, and belt
match sanctuary materials)
Priesthood (access to Holy
Place, administer the Altar;
belt matches sanctuary
materials)
Israelites (approach altar for
sacrifice officiated by
priests, primarily in land;
one blue thread in tassels)
Non-Israelites
 167

Introduction to Part 2: From Holy to Heavenly Space-Time: Songs of the Sabbath

Sacrifice and the Refocusing of Moses’ Vision into the Heavenly Tabernacle

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice constitute the first documents after Ezekiel,

the Pentateuch, and Isaiah to recombine the Sabbath and the sanctuary. They do so,

however, by transposing this priestly relationship along with its ancient Near Eastern

scheme of creation, Sabbath, Tabernacle/sanctuary, and enthronement into a heavenly

framework. In doing so, they are also the first to place the Tabernacle in the heavenly

realm. On both counts, the Epistle to the Hebrews soon followed the Songs.

During the Second Temple period the imagined locus of God’s presence

underwent a fundamental shift: alongside the earthly sanctuary that represented the

cosmos, various documents increasingly portrayed a sanctuary in heaven that mirrored

the earthly one. This shift represents a reconfiguration of the entire space-time of

holiness from earthly to heavenly, with attending consequences: while still revolving

around the symbols and practices of the Sabbath and the sanctuary, with the heavenly

sanctuary and heavenly Sabbath, the throne too becomes heavenly, and the priests

become heavenly beings (“gods” or “angels”) or the heavenly beings become more

priestly to attend to the heavenly sanctuary instead of only being courtiers in God’s

heavenly court.1 It is, therefore, the liturgies sung by the celestial priests on the Sabbath

1
e.g., Job 1:6; 2:1; 15:15; Ps. 82:1; 89:3-7; cf. 11Q13.
 168

that provide the clearest vantage point of the intersections of heavenly space and

heavenly time.

The Songs draw upon the resources of the idealized past “pattern” of Tabernacle

of Exodus and “likeness” of the throne and temple of Ezekiel in a Sabbath-induced

evocation of the heavenly sanctuary both in terms of the Songs’ larger organization and

their specific terminology. Carol Newsom has discussed how Songs 9-13 are structurally

modeled upon the “temple tour” of Ezekiel 40-48,2 but this is only part of the story. The

Songs blend and blur Ezekiel and Exodus together: touring with Ezekiel is also seeing

what Moses saw; it is simultaneously modeled off of Ezekiel 40-48 and Exodus 25-31

with additional reference to 2 Kings and 1 Chronicles, drawing upon and interweaving

nearly every temple tradition within the Hebrew Bible. Ultimately, the precise

interconnections with Ezekiel’s tour are less thoroughgoing than the extensive references

to Exodus 25-31 throughout the Songs. While often noted, the Exodus context has not

been given its sufficient due;3 it explains structural organizations, terminology, and why

the Sabbath and the sanctuary are brought together at all.

The Songs bring the Sabbath and the sanctuary together each week for thirteen

weeks by following the priestly pattern in broader terms. The first song occurs on the

first Sabbath of the year, the creation Sabbath in the sectarian calendar, thereby
2
cf. New Jerusalem Texts (1Q32; 2Q24; 4Q554; 4Q554a; 4Q555; 5Q15; 11Q18). Carol Newsom, Songs
of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) 16, 51-5. She admits that any
depiction of the temple from the outside inward will give a similar structural arrangement as Ezekiel’s tour,
but her best evidence is from Song 9 which discusses the vestibule (cf. Ezek. 40:8, 9; 43:1-5) and engraved
images (cf. Ezek. 41:15-26), and Song 12, which discusses the throne-chariot (cf. Ezekiel 1 and 10, 43:1-5).
These three instances are limited compared to the extensive Tabernacle imagery throughout. Cf. Ra‘anan
Boustan, “Angels in the Architecture,” 201-3.
3
James R. Davila ("The Macrocosmic Temple, Scriptural Exegesis, and the Songs of the Sabbath
Sacrifice," DSD 9.1 (2002): 1-19) begins his analysis with the Tabernacle of Exod. 25-31, 35-40, while
also giving balanced attention to Ezekiel 1, 10, 40-48 and discussing 1 Chronicles 28-9 extensively. He
summarizes all of the clear references to the Tabernacle vision of Exodus on pp. 3-4.
 169

reenacting God’s original Sabbath. The Songs, moreover, show interest in Shavuot,

which falls between Songs 11 and 12 and commemorates Moses’ revelation on Sinai.

Beginning in Song 7, there are consistent allusions to Moses’ vision on Sinai in Exodus

25-31, 35-40. Two prominent Songs, Songs 7 and 12, for example, discuss the ‫תבנית‬and

the Tabernacle (Song 7) and the ‫ תבנית‬of the “throne-chariot” (Song 12), terminology and

imagery reflecting Exodus 25. Song 10 reflects Exodus 26, regarding the veil that

divides the holy of holies and the rest of the Tabernacle; Song 13, Exodus 28 and 39,

regarding the High Priest’s Breastplate and also using the term ‫תבנית‬. Other precise

language, such as the multicolored cloth, woven workmanship, and the “purely salted”

mixtures from the vision of the ‫תבנית‬of the Tabernacle of Exodus also regularly appear in

Songs 9-13. The priestly orientation of the Pentateuch supplies the raw materials for the

architectonics of the Songs, including sequencing, the days they are sung, and specific

language and imagery. Liturgically progressing from creation to Sinai’s revelation on

thirteen successive Sabbaths the participants reenact Moses’ vision.4

The tavnit, moreover, merges with Ezekiel’s terminology of “likenesses” and

“images,” compounding the reenactment: the participants align Moses’ and Ezekiel’s

visions into a single heavenly reality. For example, in the climactic moments of Song 12,

the vision with the “pattern of the throne-chariot” within the heavenly “Tabernacle”

melds Exodus and Ezekiel. Within this vision, one can place Song 12 and Ezekiel 1 side-

by-side, seeing how Song 12 is a point-by-point reconfiguration of Ezekiel 1, but at the

4
Note Bell (Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 123): “Theories that have defined ritual activity as first and
foremost the reenactment of historical or mythical precedents, such as those formulated by Eliade, risk a
certain blindness to a group’s constant reinterpretation of what constitutes these precedents and the
community’s relationship to them.” The Songs illustrate that “reenactment” is a transformation of
meaning: the combination of multiple theophanies from Ezekiel and Exodus (and others) and the
transposition onto the heavenly realm result in new understandings of the Sabbath-Sanctuary relationship as
well as a reinterpretation of the earlier visions.
 170

crucial moment of the throne itself, substitutes Exodus’ “pattern” for Ezekiel’s “likeness”

of the “throne-chariot,” co-activating Exodus 25, while the “throne-chariot” itself

acknowledges the mobility of the throne in Ezekiel’s vision.

In dialogue with biblical priestly traditions, a religious environment in which

earthly realities imperfectly reflected heavenly ones, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Songs

of the Sabbath Sacrifice re-inflected the sacred intersections of the Sabbath and the

sanctuary in liturgical form.5 They coordinated the time and place of God’s fullest

presence on the Sabbath in the heavenly sanctuary through ritual and textual means,

reenacting Moses’ and Ezekiel’s visions on a heavenly plane.

5
Carol Newsom has brought Bakhtinian perspectives to the study of ancient Jewish texts, but has not
retuned to the Songs in the process; Carol A. Newsom, "Bakhtin, the Bible, and Dialogic Truth," JR 76
(1996): 290-306; idem, Book of Job; idem, Self as Symbolic Space; idem, “Spying out the Land.”
 171

Chapter 6: Placing the Songs: Their Historical, Liturgical, and Conceptual Context

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice combine diverse traditions. After the

Pentateuch and Ezekiel, these liturgies were the first works to bring the Sabbath and the

sanctuary together, making the Sabbath the temporal access to the heavenly sanctuary.

While there had been a tradition of the heavenly sanctuary for centuries, beginning with

the “Book of Watchers” in the late-third to early-second century BCE, the Songs were the

first to coordinate the Sabbath with the heavenly sanctuary and the first to place the

Pentateuch’s Tabernacle in the heavenly realm. They did so by presenting the Sabbath as

a heavenly liturgy in which both humans and heavenly beings participated together. It is

a human liturgy that exhorts and participates in the heavenly liturgy on the Sabbath in the

heavenly Tabernacle. Thus, it brings the Sabbath and the sanctuary back together and

places the Tabernacle in the heavenly realm by drawing on another strand of tradition that

was also prominent in the apocalyptic tradition: heavenly liturgies. Unlike the earlier

apocalypses, which are descriptive narratives, however, the Songs are themselves

liturgies and prayers to be performed by a person or group. They formed part of the

ceremony of conjoined human and angelic Sabbath worship.

Although trajectories of the context of liturgies, heavenly sanctuary speculation,

and the heavenly Sabbath can be established, the historical and ritual context of the Songs

remains uncertain. The question of whether or to what degree they were sectarian must

first be addressed. In the end, the Songs were clearly valued and used by the sectarians,
 172

but show no strong sectarian marks. They may have been pre- or extra-sectarian, but

used by the sectarians as well as others. They show strong affinities with some sectarian

documents—Songs of the Sage and parts of the Thanksgiving Hymns—but also show

equally strong affinities with non-sectarian literature that was also highly valued at

Qumran, such as Jubilees, which when juxtaposed to the Songs almost provides a

narrative etiology for the type of Sabbath liturgy presented in the Songs.

Were the Songs Sectarian? Their Immediate Context

John Strugnell presented fragments of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice in

1959,1 but a critical edition did not appear until 1985 by Carol Newsom.2 The literature

has since exploded,3 and much of it has placed these liturgies within trajectories of

Jewish Mysticism, being compared and contrasted with later Hekhalot texts.4

1
J. Strugnell, “The Angelic Liturgy at Qumrân – 4Q Serek Šîrôt Haššabbāt,” in Congress Volume: Oxford
1959 (VTSup7; Leiden: Brill, 1960) 318-45.
2
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice;, Carol Newsom, "Shirot 'Olat Hashabbat," Qumran Cave 4. VI,
Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part I, ed. Esther Eshel (DJD 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) 173-401, plates
xvi-xxxi; James Charlesworth, Carol A. Newsom and et al, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 4B, Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999).
3
See the helpful bibliography in James R. Davila, Liturgical Works (Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead
Sea Scrolls 6; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000) 93-97.
4
The connections were originally suggested by Strugnell, “Angelic Liturgy.” Others have fleshed out the
continuities and discontinuities with this and related literature more extensively: Lawrence H. Schiffman,
"Merkavah Speculation at Qumran: The 4Q Serek Shirot 'Olat ha-Shabbat," Mystics, Philosophers, and
Politicians: Essays in Jewish Intellectual History in Honor of Alexander Altman, ed. Jehuda Reinharz,
Daniel Swetschinski and with Kalman P. Bland (Durham: Duke University Press, 1982) 15-47; Dale C.
Allison, "The Silence of the Angels: Reflections on the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice," RevQ 13 (1988):
189-97; Joseph M. Baumgarten, "The Qumran Sabbath Shirot and Rabbinic Merkabah Traditions," RevQ
13 (1988): 199-213; Bilhah Nitzan, "Harmonic and Mystical Characteristics in Poetical and Liturgical
Writings from Qumran," JQR 85.1-2 (1994): 163-83; Elliot R. Wolfson, "Mysticism and Poetic-Liturgical
Compositions from Qumran: A Response to Bilhah Nitzan," JQR 85.1-2 (1994): 185-202; Michael D.
Swartz, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and Later Jewish Magic and Mysticism," DSD 8.2 (2001): 182-93; Rachel
Elior, Three Temples; Davila, Liturgical Works, 83-167; Philip Alexander, Mystical Texts: Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrifice and Related Manuscripts (London: T&T Clark, 2006).
 173

The Songs consist of thirteen liturgical hymns performed on thirteen consecutive

Sabbaths during the first quarter of the year according to the ancient Jewish 364-day solar

calendar as found in such texts as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Dead Sea sectarian

documents.5 They are thirteen liturgies that concern, exhort, and participate in the

heavenly liturgies of celestial priests. They never report the content of what the heavenly

beings say—they speak of the “seven wondrous words,” but not what those words are—

but the human practitioners exhort the divine beings to praise the “God of Gods.” The

text is highly fragmentary, but ten copies have been discovered at Qumran (eight copies

in cave 4; one copy in cave 11) and at Masada (one copy). Most of the manuscripts

likely date from the first century CE, while the earliest ones use a script dated to the late

Hasmonean period (ca. 75-50 BCE);6 the original composition is more difficult to place

and depends upon whether one thinks the Songs were originally sectarian or predated the

establishment of the sect. A tentative hypothesis is that they originate from the late

second century or the early first century BCE.7

The Dead Sea sectarians, having split off from the Jerusalemite priesthood,

developed an extensive preoccupation with the temple with prescriptions for governance

and purity as well as an idealized view of how the temple should and, in the future, would

be run.8 Indeed, the primary issues of its formation and split from the priesthood were

5
Calendar was clearly important for Qumran. Not only is it assumed and invoked in several documents,
but twenty-one calendars were found—more than any other document; Carol A. Newsom, "'Sectually
Explicit' Literature from Qumran," The Hebrew Bible and its Interpreters, ed. William Henry Propp,
Baruch Halpern and David Noel Freedman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 170.
6
These are 4Q400, 4Q405, 4Q407. The rest use later Herodian script. See Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath
Sacrifice, 1-4; Davila, Liturgical Works 85-6.
7
See Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 1-4.
8
See the more extensive summary in Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 61-3.
 174

the legitimacy of the new high priest,9 the appropriate calendar (the 364-day, 52-week

calendar), proper temple governance and means of keeping the temple ritually pure, and

observing the Torah (4QMMT; Temple Scroll XLV:7-LI:10).10 It is reflected in the

community’s own habits and self-perceptions. Based upon Ezekiel 40-48, they

developed an idealized future temple in the Temple Scroll and an eschatological temple

in the New Jerusalem texts, both of which probably date from the early formative period

of the sect.11 The Temple Scroll, in particular, lays down ideal purity prescriptions that

are far stricter than any other known procedure from the Pentateuch to Rabbinic sources.

Moreover, they conceived of their community as a temple. 4QFlor, which speaks

of a “temple of Adam,” may refer to the sectarian community, but may refer to a real or

idealized temple building.12 Clearer evidence comes from the Rule of the Community.13

This work never uses the word “temple” or “sanctuary” with regard to the community,

9
In sectarian literature, the high priest is called the wicked priest (1QpHab VIII, 8-13; VIII, 16-IX, 1; IX,
9-12; XI, 4-8; 4QpPSa [4Q171] 1-10 IV, 8-10), and there is enough description to identify him as Jonathan
(152-143), although it is also probable that the sectarians thereafter applied this title to each successive
Hasmonean high priest; thus, the split probably occurred around 152 BCE, when Jonathan took the robes of
the high priest on Sukkoth. There is no evidence to show that the sectarians’ opposition to the Hasmoneans
had anything to do with genealogical disqualifications, but rather their treatment of the Teacher of
Righteousness and violation of proper rules of keeping the sanctuary and the Torah; see Alison Schofield
and James C. VanderKam, "Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?," JBL 124.1 (2005): 73-87.
10
Klawans (Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 147-53) also notes a consistent charge that the greed of the
(high) priesthood has morally defiled the temple.
11
Florentino García Martínez, "The Temple Scroll and the New Jerusalem," The Dead Sea Scrolls after
Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam, 2 vols. (Leiden:
Brill, 1999) 2:431-59.
12
Lloyd Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic
Gospels (Leiden: Brill, 1970) 163-8; John J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London:
Routledge, 1997) 57-8; Michael Owen Wise, "4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam," RevQ 57-8/15.1-2
(1991-1992): 107-110; Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 162-4.
13
1QS 8:4-7, 8:8-10, 9:3-6, 5:5-7; cf. CD 3:18-4:10 and 1QpH 12:3.
 175

although the terminology is used elsewhere, but speaks of the “house.”14 “House” can

refer to the holy temple and is the most common term in the Hebrew Bible for the

sanctuary or the holy priestly lineage. Such a layering of structure and lineage may allow

the identification between a physical structure and a community to be made more readily.

The text, indeed, discusses the holy house for Israel and the holy of holies of Aaron (1QS

8:5-6, 8:8-9, 9:6), clearly aligning temple and genealogical language.15

While this linguistic layering assists the application of temple language to a group

of people, it is important in another way. With the development of the idea of a heavenly

sanctuary corresponding to the earthly, as God resides in heaven, so the presence of God

in some manner inhabits the earthly sanctuary in the form of the Name, the Word, the

‫שכינה‬, Presence/Face, or Glory/‫ ;כבוד‬thus, the heavenly sanctuary revolution produces

divine emanation theology.16 The other result of the heavenly temple revolution is the

population of the divine realm with angels/gods who minister to God in his heavenly

temple, who correspond to priests, with angelic worship in heaven corresponding to

priestly worship on earth. The Qumran corpus never claims, however, that God or an

aspect of God dwells among the community, although angels do. The Dead Sea Scrolls

do evince the concept of the divine presence in the temple, such as in the future temple in

the Temple Scroll and in the heavenly temple as attested in the Songs, whether written or

used by the community, but the texts that apply temple symbolism to the community

14
Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 165-6.
15
See Newsom (Self as Symbolic Space, 138, 156-65) teases out the intertextual allusions in the dense
architectural imagery that pervades this passage (including foundation, wall, planting, corner, house, and
dwelling), particularly picking up the language of Is. 28:16-18; the “pleasing odor” which is a cultic term
ubiquitous in the priestly cultic legislation. As such, she concludes that this language appropriates the
mediatory and atoning function of the temple and its cult.
16
Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 112.
 176

never assert that the divine Name, Presence, or Glory dwells among them, as is the case

in later Pauline literature.17 This indicates that the community saw itself as a provisional

alternative to the temple, or, as Klawans argues, they imitated it rather than replacing it.18

The Songs, by contrast, provide further reflection upon a permanent sanctuary structure

(‫ )תבנית‬in heaven.

The scholarly debates on the social location of the Songs focus on the

terminology of the ‫ משכיל‬used at the beginning of each Song; that nine copies were found

at Qumran; and that an additional copy was found at Masada. In her discussion, Newsom

distinguishes between different types of “sectarian” documents: sectarian by authorship,

sectarian by use, and sectarian by rhetoric.19 The Songs demonstrate no sectarian

rhetoric, nor are they interested in creating or maintaining a separation between the

sectarians and a larger group—only a separation between humans and divine beings.20

On the other hand, they share with the sectarian community the solar calendar, a

17
1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; Rom. 8:9-11; Eph. 2:19-22; cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-5; Ignatius, Eph 9:1; Hermas,
Sin. 9; Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 155, 166-7.
18
Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 170.
19
Newsom, “Sectually Explicit,” 173; cf. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 1-4.
20
Klawans has argued that the sectarian documents collectively are not anti-temple, but only oppose the
current priestly regime; the intensity of the opposition to the priesthood as well as the “templizing”
language of the scrolls in general, the heightened regard for the temple and the consequent heightened
sensitivity to its “pollution” by the current regime. Nothing in the Songs indicates any oppositional stance,
but this could be due to its genre as liturgy. Cf. Crispin Fletcher-Louis, "Ascent to Heaven and the
Embodiment of Heaven: A Revisionist Reading of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice," SBLSP (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1998) 367-99; Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical
Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2001), argues that the “gods/angels” are human
priests and the “heavens” are really the earthly temple. His interpretation, which is most interested in
Songs 1 and 13, is difficult to maintain with the Songs’ clear differentiation between human and angelic
communities in Song 2; between “gods” and “humans,” “our priesthood” versus “their heavenly
dwellings,” “our tongue of dust” versus “the knowledge of the gods,” and the divine camps and human
councils. For a rebuttal, see Kevin P. Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship
between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish LIterature and the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2004);
and Alexander, Mystical Texts, 45-7.
 177

preoccupation with the priesthood, and a highly developed angelology,21 although one

could say the same thing about pre-sectarian documents: the Enoch corpus, Jubilees, etc.

But the Songs also use a term of the ‫משכיל‬. In a Qumran context, this was an office

responsible for community instruction (1QS iii 13) and for liturgical tasks (1QS ix 26-x

5; 1QSb).22 The reference to the ‫משכיל‬in the Songs and the expected liturgical and

angelological knowledge of the ‫משכיל‬in the community coincide.23

The number of copies found at Qumran suggests ongoing importance and use—

they were copied, read, and probably used as directed in a liturgical setting for the first

thirteen weeks of the year. But this is an argument of use and not authorship.

Nonetheless, as Newsom writes, “Whether or not these texts [War Scroll and the Songs

of the Sabbath Sacrifice] were written by members of the Qumran community, it is

plausible that they may have influenced the self-understanding of the community as

deeply as the pesharim or the Hodayot.”24 The Songs share strong thematic parallels with

the Berakhot and the Songs of the Sage, which also partake of a marked interest in the

celestial realm, the heavenly temple, and its heavenly attendants. The Berakhot are

liturgies for the covenant renewal ceremony that takes place during Shavuot, a festival

that occurs between Songs 11 and Song 12 according to the sectarian calendar. Newsom

argues that they have influenced the Berakhot rather than the other way around, and that

the Songs of the Maskil (or Songs of the Sage) appear to be dependent upon both the

21
Newsom, “Sectually Explicit,” 171.
22
For more extensive references, see Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 262-3.
23
Newsom, “Sectually Explicit,” 180, 183.
24
Newsom, “Sectually Explicit,” 173.
 178

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Berakhot.25 The difference is that these latter two

texts have much clearer sectarian interests than the Songs do.26 Nonetheless, they may all

be working with similar materials rather than being dependent upon one another.27

Newsom’s final argument moves her away from sectarian authorship. Sectarian

documents avoid the tetragrammaton and the word ‫אלוהים‬. The Songs likewise avoid the

tetragrammaton, but use the word ‫—אלוהים‬but so do the sectarian Songs of the Sage.

Outside of the biblical works at Qumran, only the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the

Songs of the Sage use this term for God. The latter have a clear sectarian orientation,

whereas the former are ambiguous. Newsom suggests that the Songs of the Sabbath

Sacrifice originated before or outside the community, was appropriated by the

community, valued by the community, and influenced the Berakhot and the Songs of the

Sage.28 The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice would be sectarian, therefore, in terms of use

and influence rather than authorship. These arguments produce two possibilities for their

presence at Masada: either a sectarian carried them to Masada,29 or the Songs were

known and used by larger circles than the sectarians.30 Ultimately, they are sectarian by

usage and importance, but the authorship remains unknown, with a possibility that they

25
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 4; idem, “Sectually Explicit,” 181.
26
For example, the both the Berakhot and the Songs of the Sage make direct reference to the sectarian
community (4Q286 10 ii1; 4Q511 2 I 9-10); see Newsom, “Sectually Explicit,” 181, 184.
27
Davila, Liturgical Works, 91.
28
Newsom, “Sectually Explicit,” 184.
29
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 74 n. 5.
30
Newsom, “Sectually Explicit,” 182; Alexander, Mystical Texts, 23-5, 96-8, 129, entertains the idea that
the liturgies are a sectarian reworking of a non-sectarian text of a Jerusalemite priestly provenance. He
maintains it being sectarian because of a correspondence between Song 5 and the Sermon on the Two
Spirits in the Community Rule (1QS iii 15-16) alongside Song 5’s war language and the War Scroll (1QM).
 179

were more broadly revered, perhaps by those who produced 1 Enoch, the Testament of

Levi, and Jubilees. They were a resource for the Qumran community’s heavenly

imagination and its coordination of heavenly space and time with its attendant

consequences of angelology and conjoined earthly and heavenly worship.

Although they were “used” by the sectarians, it is difficult to determine what this

means.31 They were copied multiple times, and, therefore, important. Because they are

liturgies, they are meant to be performed, but how so remains nebulous. The

superscription to each song (‫ )למשכיל‬may provide a clue. Exactly what the preposition

denotes is unclear, but it could be instrumental, in the sense of “for the Maskil,” meaning

the Songs are a memory aide for the Maskil to recite before the community.

The plural “we” in Song 2 indicates that the community joined for part or all of

the Songs: “how shall we be reckoned among them,” “our priesthood,” “our tongue of

dust,” and, “let us exalt the God of knowledge” (4Q400 2:6-8).32 In the second Song, the

community is exhorted to exalt the God of knowledge, just as the celestial priests are

called to do in each Song.33 Even though they continue to express their unworthiness, the

human community joins the angelic priesthood in conjoined worship; their liturgies

exhorting the celestial beings to praise the God of Gods itself becomes an act of praise,

aligning human and heavenly communities in liturgical harmony as they evoke the

heavenly sanctuary.34 These Songs’ relationship to the liturgical year heightens their

31
On the difficulties surrounding use of the Songs, see Alexander, Mystical Texts, 6, 10, 110-13.
32
See Alexander, Mystical Texts, 44, 48-9.
33
Baumgarten, “Qumran Sabbath Shirot,” 201, calls this “congregational mysticism.”
34
This language of liturgical harmony is taken from Nitzan, “Harmonic and Mystical Characteristics”; cf.
Elliot R. Wolfson ("Seven Mysteries of Knowledge: Qumran E/Sotericism Recovered," The Idea of
Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman
 180

narrative-ritual significance, moving from the Sabbath of creation to the Sabbath of

revelation, incorporating elements of Shavuot between Songs 11 and 12.

There is an ongoing discussion on the possibilities of some sort of religious

experience from the manipulation of religious emotion to altered states of consciousness,

particularly regarding the language and syntax of the Songs. For example, the repetitious

and sonorous language of the first half of the Songs and the profusion of synonyms, lack

of verbs, and extensive construct chains of the second half may have induced some sort

of altered state of consciousness, aiding the experience of angelic communion as

discussed in the Hodayot or the Community Rule.35 Although the type or degree of

religious experience is impossible to determine, these liturgies ritually inculcate an

intense awareness of the community’s own heavenly existence—that is, their own

proximity to the most holy and the divine. It is by this proximity that it acutely perceives

its own unworthiness as in Song 2. Through these acts of praise the community joins the

heavenly communion and passes through the successive parts of the heavenly temple to

(Leiden: Brill, 2003) 182-4), who speaks in terms of “liturgical synchronism or what may be called
reciprocal reciprocity, double mirroring of heaven and earth, Jerusalem temple and celestial throne. To
speak of a double mirroring—as below above, as above below—suggests something of a challenge to the
hierarchical alignment of heavenly and mundane; mirrored and mirror are indistinguishable when the
mirror is mirrored as the mirrored of the mirror.” Alexander (Mystical Texts, 10) suggests the ultimate
purpose of this is “union” with the angels and “communion” with God. Cf. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory
of Adam, 306-9.
35
On the poetic structures, see Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 14-16; Stanislav Segert,
"Observations on the Poetics Structures in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice," RevQ 13 (1988): 215-23;
Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (Leiden: Brill, 1994). On the problems and
possibilities that the liturgies’ stylistic features may incubate ecstatic experience, see Strugnell, “Angelic
Liturgy,” 318-45; Shiffman, “Merkavah Speculation at Qumran,” 15-47; Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath
Sacrifice, 14-18; Nitzan, “Harmonic and Mystical Characteristics,” 178-9; Wolfson, “Mysticism and the
Poetic-Liturgical Compositions,” 196-7; James R. Davila, "Heavenly Ascents in the Dead Sea Scrolls,"
The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, ed. Peter W. Flint and James C.
VanderKam, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 461-85; Swartz, “Dead Sea Scrolls and Later Jewish Magic and
Mysticism,” 185-90; Boustan, “Angels in the Architecture,” 195-212. I would note that poetic devices do
not exclude attempts at creative exegesis or discursive content—altered states need not imply vacuous
meaninglessness (cf. Boustan, “Angels in the Architecture,” 195-7).
 181

enter the heavenly tabernacle, pass through the veil into the heavenly holy of holies, view

God’s throne-chariot, and see the glorious high priestly garments. Sabbath worship is the

entrance to heavenly realities; it is the experience of the holy at its greatest intensity.

In summary, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, whether or not they originated in

the sectarian community, were important to and used by that community and may have

had wider circulation. The “sage” (‫ )משכיל‬skilled in angelology, possibly led the liturgy,

although this is unclear. As exhorted in Song 2, the community as a whole joined the

angelic priesthood in their Sabbath praise in the heavenly Tabernacle. This Sabbath

praise gave the reciting community access to the heavenly sanctuary, even as they were

separated from the earthly one, aligning the Sabbath and the heavenly sanctuary through

liturgical means: as in earlier literature through ritual, sacred time allows the practitioners

to experience the holiness of the sacred space otherwise denied to them.

Shifting to Heavenly Space and Time

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice provide the most sustained meditation on the

heavenly sanctuary in antiquity. In the second temple period, there was a shift in the

ancient Jewish conception of the place of the divine from the earthly sanctuary that

represented the cosmos to the heavenly temple in a bi-level earthly/heavenly

cosmology.36 This shift was not complete; the older conception persisted alongside the

36
Solomon’s temple, for example, shows itself through its imagery to be a microcosm of heaven, earth, and
the underworld; see, e.g., W.F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press, 1953) 142-55. Klawans (Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 111-44) distinguishes between the
“temple as cosmos,” or the temple as a microcosm or representing the cosmos, and “temple in the cosmos,”
in which a temple in heaven mirrors the earthly temple. These concepts are not mutually exclusive, but the
ancient sources tend to favor one or the other and rarely ever include both in the same text. The
correlatives of the second approach are theologies of divine emanation, in which an aspect of God, who
dwells in heaven, inhabits the earthly counterpart: the “presence,” the “name,” the “Logos,” etc. The
second correlative is that a heavenly temple must have heavenly priests: the “angels” will henceforth serve
 182

new and receives its clearest articulation in this period with Philo and Josephus. The new

perspective can be found primarily, but not exclusively, in apocalyptic literature: 1

Enoch, Testament of Levi, 2 Enoch, Apocalypse of Zephaniah, the Apocalypse of

Abraham, the Ascension of Isaiah, and 3 Baruch. It can be found in a simple prayer from

the first century, “on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). Unfortunately, many of these

apocalyptic texts have tortuous transmission histories, often showing Christian revision,

and can only be adduced for this period with caution.

The Heavenly Orientation in Second Temple Literature

The shift these works represent is not away from holiness to heavenliness, but a

reorganization of holiness within heavenliness, or heavenliness as the source of holiness.

The temporal quality remains largely the same—same days of the week or year—except

that the Enochic tradition, which includes 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, and Testament of Levi, uses

a solar rather than the luni-solar calendar. Nonetheless, holy time will now be imbued

with heavenly speculation and greater access to heavenly holiness.

The “Book of Watchers” (1 Enoch 1-36),37 dated to the third to early second

century BCE, is the first work to depict a heavenly temple. The vision of the enthroned

in this regard, being portrayed as priests and as the archetype of priests. While the Hebrew Bible presents
symbols in the temple that suggest it as a microcosm, the only second temple sources that portray the
“temple as a cosmos” are first-century sources: Philo and Josephus (JW 5:184-237; Ant. 3:102-279).
Although Wis. Sol. 18:24 might provide earlier indications in this direction. Davila (“Macrocosmic
Temple”) blurs this distinction. Cf. Fletcher-Louis (All the Glory of Adam, 474) for a mapping of the
heavenly/earthly parallelism based upon the War Scroll (1QM) that is a bit more complicated.
37
The “Book of Watchers” (1 Enoch 1-36), “Book of Dreams” (83-90), the “Epistle of Enoch” (91-108),
and a longer recension of the “Astrological Book” (72-82) were all found at Qumran (4Q201, 202, 205,
206, 207, 212); only the “Similitudes of Enoch” (37-71) are missing.
 183

Great Glory in the three-part heavenly temple (14.9, 10, 15)38 does not owe its imagery to

the priestly sections of the Pentateuch or Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings or 2 Chronicles,

but to Ezekiel’s visions of the conveyance that carries God’s Glory (Ezekiel 1, 8-11, 43):

why else would the throne have wheels (1 Enoch 14:18)?39 The depiction of the Glory of

God on the throne also resembles Dan. 7:9-10, which also is indebted to Ezekiel (its

throne also has wheels). The heavenly temple itself, however, only loosely resembles

any biblical depiction of a temple, including Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ezekiel 40-48).40

In the subsequent century, Aramaic Levi was written in the turbulent environment

of the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes, the Maccabean Revolt, and the rise of the

Hasmoneans.41 Much of Aramaic Levi, found in the Cairo Geniza and the Dead Sea

Scrolls (1Q21, 4Q213; 4Q213a, 4Q213b, 4Q214, 4Q214a, 4Q214b), is fragmentary, but

the Christianized Testament of Levi fills in many gaps. In this testamentary apocalypse,

Levi enters an open heaven, which is also a temple. After approaching the “Holy Most

High” on the throne, he receives priestly investiture. The text develops the priestly

fascination with the number seven: there are now seven heavens instead of one—

38
Himmelfarb (Ascents to Heaven, 14) notes that Enoch passes through three barriers in his ascent in this
section, suggesting a temple of three zones of graded holiness, mirroring the earthly temple in this regard.
39
Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 10.
40
Although an element of the sacred time is introduced in the “Astronomical Book” to justify the 364-day
solar calendar, one could only do an analysis of the development of heavenly space-time when considering
the two earliest Enochic apocalypses together, with the “Book of Watchers’” heavenly sacred space,
coordinated with the “Astronomical Book’s” development of heavenly sacred time. Important for the
Songs and for Hebrews, the angels of heaven multiply (“ten thousand times ten thousand”; 1 Enoch 14:22)
act like priests: “And the watchers and holy ones who draw near to him turn not away from him, by night
or by day, nor do they depart from him” (1 Enoch 14:23). Drawing near is the technical language for
priestly activities in the Bible. Likewise, since Enoch intercedes for the watchers, he acts like a priest,
since a priest intercedes between the people and God—the irony is that a human is interceding between the
heavenly priests and God (1 Enoch 15:2). See Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 9-28.
41
Much of the literature of this period is highly critical of the new regime (TLevi 9:9; 14:1-16:5; cf. 1
Enoch 83-90 “Dream Visions”; 4Q204 4; 4Q405 2 i-iii; 4Q406 5 ii-iii; 4Q207 1).
 184

although the awkwardness of the numeration in the text indicates this as a later

redaction—the top four of which constitute the temple itself (Test. Levi 3). “Seven men

in white clothing” invest him (cf. 1 Enoch 20; 81:5; 87:2; 90:21).

Similarly, 2 Enoch has seven heavens (in recension A; recension J has ten), seven

groups of angels in the sixth heaven with seven phoenixes, seven cherubim, and seven

seraphim, who sing to God in unison (2 Enoch 19). Moreover, 2 Enoch retells the

priestly creation (Gen. 1:1-2:3) over several chapters (2 Enoch 24.2-33.2). By doing so,

creation and rest are reunited with creation needed for rest (24.5) as in the Babylonian

texts, but the broader interconnections of creation, temple, Sabbath, and enthronement

remain unmade.42

Nonetheless, TLevi’s only direct contact with the priestly sources is in the high

priest’s investiture and the anointing (TLevi 8; Ex. 28:41-43; 29:1-8; cf. Eph. 6:13-17).

He also learns the sacrifices and offerings to present after he returns to earth (TLevi 9).

Other priestly concerns include purity of genealogy, circumcision, maintaining purity in

the temple—the text is scathing of Levi’s descendents in this respect (TLevi 14-17). So

while increasing in priestly interests, the closest this document gets to the sources of the

sanctuary/Sabbath correspondence is the priestly investiture as directed in the vision

Moses received on Sinai in Exodus 28-29. The multiplication of heavens to seven shared

with 2 Enoch, however, will resonate with the Songs’ obsession with sevens.

While these works show connections with Ezekiel,43 none of them show much

interaction with the priestly portions of the Pentateuch; none of them refer to Tabernacle

42
See Himmelfarb, Ascents to Heaven, 84-7.
43
The Apocalypse of Abraham (1st century CE?), for example, brings together Genesis 15 and Ezekiel 1.
 185

imagery, excepting investiture. There are no direct references to Exodus, but similar to

Exod. 25:9 these seers see an ideal model of a temple (here the heavenly temple) in order

to go back and engage in proper sacrificial activities on earth. Yet any potential influence

in this regard remains elusive. Even the precise correspondences to Ezekiel refer to the

throne vision (Ezekiel 1) and not necessarily the idealized temple (Ezekiel 40-48). The

first explicit reference to this imagery will be the Songs themselves.

The Heavenly Orientation in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice provide the most sustained depiction of the

heavenly sanctuary in ancient Jewish literature, yet have no direct references to the earlier

depictions, such as in 1 Enoch. All of its precise imagery is taken from biblical sources

such as Exodus, Ezekiel, 1 Kings, and 2 Chronicles. It takes the cosmological

perspective of works like 1 Enoch and shares its calendar, but maps the biblical priestly

imagery of the sanctuary, particularly the Tabernacle, onto this cosmological perspective.

As the Songs transpose holy space-time to heavenly realities, holiness language

intensifies, reaching greater frequency than even in the Holiness Code (Lev. 17-26). The

most pervasive consonantal root used throughout the Songs is ‫קדש‬. It occurs in both

nominal and adjectival forms, using especially the term ‫ קדש קדשים‬or “holy of holies.”

The term ‫ קדשים‬also can refer to the “holy ones,” or even ‫קודשי קודשים‬, “the most holy

ones,” who are “angelic” or “divine” beings.44 This terminology is common throughout

the Songs, and has a long history in Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian literature to refer to

44
Cf. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam.
 186

angelic or divine beings, but also occasionally to humans.45 “Holy ones,” for example, is

commonly used as a designation for divine beings in the Thanksgiving Hymns. The

Songs call these divine beings “the (most) holy ones,” and, at the same time, has a

preoccupation with the concept of “holiness” as a whole. The holiness, as in P, H, and

Ezekiel attaches itself to the heavenly place and the heavenly priesthood. The heavenly

priesthood must be “holy” to approach (‫)קרב‬46 God enthroned in the heavenly sanctuary,

just as the earthly priesthood must remain holy to perform its liturgical duties in the

temple in Jerusalem or for the sectarians in their temporary separation from the temple to

maintain its code of holiness and its communion with the holy heavenly beings.

The holiness language applies to the term “sanctuary” itself, the ‫מקדש‬, employing

the same root as the "holy of holies"; nonetheless, the Songs draw upon copious

alternatives for sanctuary language,47 such “inner chamber” (‫ )דביר‬and more

rarely, “Tabernacle” (‫)משכן‬. One also occasionally finds the term hekhal (‫ )חכל‬and the

plural hekhalot (‫)חכלות‬, “palaces” or “temples” (4Q400 1i:13). All of these terms,

excepting “Tabernacle” and perhaps “holy of holies” (given its ambiguity), appear in the

plural, presenting multiple “sanctuaries” (‫ )מקדשים‬and “inner chambers” (‫)דבירים‬.48 This

45
Biblical usage of this term: angelic or divine beings (Deut 33:3; Ps 89:6, 8; Job 5:1; Zech 14:5; Dan.
4:14) and human figures (Ps 34:10). In other Jewish literature: divine beings (1 Enoch 19 (cf. Jude 14);
14:23; 61:8; 106:19; T. Job 33:2; Jub. 31:14; Pss. Sol. 17:49. In Qumran literature: 1QS xi:7-8; 1QM
x:12; 1QHa xi:22; 4Q510 1:2; 11Q13 ii:9. As humans in Jewish literature (Tob 8:15; 1 Enoch 48:7) and
in early Christian texts (Acts 9:13; Rom 8:27; 1 Tim 5:10; Heb 6:10; 1 Clem 46:2; Ign. Smyrn. 1:2). For
all these references, see Davila, Liturgical Works, 100.
46
This is technical term in the Hebrew Bible for priestly activities at the altar and in the temple. This usage
survives in Greek in the terms προσέρχοµαι and εἰσέρχοµαι to describe those who approach God (in
heaven), especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Such usage suggests that the Christian community
viewed itself as priests, or, at least, the author uses this imagery to encourage his auditors.
47
For a complete list of terms and their frequency, see Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 39-45.
48
All of this language is for the inner sanctuary; there is no terminology relating to the outer courts.
 187

pluralizing applies to other features of the heavenly sanctuary, including “thrones”

(‫ )כסאות‬and “chariots” (‫)מרכבות‬, although there is the singular “structure of the throne-

chariot" (‫ )תבנית כסא מרכבה‬in Song 12. High priestly garments of “breastplates” (‫)חשנים‬

and “ephods” (‫ )אפודים‬also appear in plural form. Given the multiplication of other

terminology, the most localized or intensified divine presence in the text appears in the

singular “Tabernacle” (‫( )משכן‬Song 7) and “throne-chariot” (Song 12) in which in Exodus

and upon which in Ezekiel, the “glory” (‫ )כבוד‬resides.

Finally, the language of the “heights” and “firmaments” firmly locates this

holiness and sanctuary in the heavens.49 Particularly important is the ubiquitous root ‫רום‬,

which means “high” or “exalted.” Based upon this root, one commonly finds ‫ מרום‬or

‫ מרומים‬and combinations like ‫מרומי רום‬. These terms appear throughout the Songs, and

mean something like “on high” or, in the plural, “the heights.” The last term could be

translated as “the heights on high,” “exalted heights,” or “the highest heights.”50

Another heavenly designation is ‫רקיע‬, which means “firmament” or “expanse,”

but could also be translated as “dome” (Ezekiel 1:22): in fact, the term shows up in Song

12, which closely mirrors Ezekiel 1.51 This latter term usually shows up in passages that

heavily rely upon the Ezekiel doxaphany, and precisely refers to the “expanse” above the

cherubim that make up the mercy-seat (or the divine throne) associated with the ark of

the testimony in the holy of holies in the temple. This term simultaneously refers to the

49
It is a fairly common term in the Hebrew Bible to refer to the heavens (e.g., Is. 35:5; 57:15; Jer. 25:30;
Pss. 71:19; 102:20; 148:1; Job 16:19). See Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 39.
50
Isaiah’s theophany uses this language regarding God’s throne: “And I saw my lord sitting on a throne
high [‫ ]רם‬and lifted up” (6:1).
51
See Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 42.
 188

throne in the temple and the “firmament” in the creation account in Gen. 1:1-2:3—which

Ezekiel and the Songs also rely upon—but since temples and creation myths were so

strongly linked in the ancient Near East, this is not particularly surprising.

The Songs were the first texts to bring Tabernacle imagery—including the word

Tabernacle and the speculative ‫—תבנית‬and the heavenly sanctuary together, while other

texts, such as 1 Enoch, preoccupied with the heavenly sanctuary show little interaction

with Pentateuchal imagery, although all texts share a debt to Ezekiel. The Songs most

consistently elucidate language of holiness from H and Ezekiel and most

comprehensively reconfigure these texts’ preoccupations with the sanctuary and its most

holy place, most holy time, and most holy priesthood within the heavenly realm.

Exhorting Angels to Praise on the Sabbath: The Heavenly Liturgical Tradition

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice are liturgies in which the human participants

exhort celestial beings to praise the “god of gods” on the Sabbath, while evoking a vision

of the heavenly sanctuary. Each Song begins with the particular Sabbath on which it

should be sung, and a subsequent exhortation to the “Gods” or “angels” to praise the

“God of Gods.” There are ancient instances of exhorting angels and all classes of beings

to praise God; there are examples of the content of that praise; there are accounts of

angels worshiping on the Sabbath; but no other document has all of these elements. The

Songs are the only texts that bring the exhortation of angels to worship and the time of

doing so on the Sabbath together, but it still lacks any content of that praise.
 189

Angelic and Heavenly Praise in Pre-Sectarian Works

Exhortations to praise are at least as old as the Psalms. Psalms 146-50 (cf. Ps.

103:19-22) are characterized by their imperative to “Praise the LORD!” Sometimes the

exhortation is to one’s own soul (Psalm 146) or more generic (Ps. 147:1, 7). Other times

the city of Jerusalem and Zion itself is commanded to praise (Ps. 147:12) and then the

community of the faithful or Israel more generally (Ps. 148). Psalms 148 and 150

command all orders of beings to praise the LORD, including those “from the heavens,”

“in the heights,” “all his angels,” “all his host,” the heavens themselves, and heavenly

bodies, such as the sun, moon, and stars (Ps. 148:1-4; cf. Ps. 150:1-2). The Songs,

likewise, command the celestial beings or “angels” in the “heights” to praise the “God of

Gods.” One might compare the “Prayer of Azariah” in the additions to Daniel which also

enjoins all aspects of creation—including heavens, angels, waters above the firmament,

powers, the sun and moon, and stars—to “bless the Lord” (vv. 35-68). A fragmentary

text from Qumran from the Words of the Luminaries has a similar structure of conjoined

worship of all aspects of the cosmos, and, like the Songs, does so on the Sabbath (4Q504

1-2 vii:4-12). The Sabbath is the appointed time of cosmic harmony in praise of God.

The command to praise in all of these sources itself is an act of praise,52 drawing the

various classes of beings together in conjoined worship of the LORD or God of Gods.

The Songs resemble the Psalms in not speaking of how exactly the celestial

beings praise God. All of the apocalypses mentioned above, however, allude to such

worship, and a few report the content of the worship.53 They mostly rely upon Is. 6:1-4, a

52
See Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 65.
53
E.g., 1 Enoch 39; 61:7-12; 2 Enoch 21:2 (J); 3 Enoch 22B; 38:1-3; Rev. 4:8; Apoc. Abr. 17:8-21;
Hekhalot Rabbati §179.
 190

throne vision in which Isaiah sees the six-winged seraphim chanting, “Holy, holy, holy is

the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.”

This triple holy would profoundly influence Jewish and Christian liturgy in the

form of the Qedushah and Trishagion, joining together human and angelic choirs. Its

earlier adaptations were fairly common. 2 Enoch 21:1 (J) quotes it, but cherubim,

seraphim, with six-winged and many-eyed creatures, do the singing. These creatures’

features can also be found in the adaptation of the holy praises in Rev. 4:8: “And the four

living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all round and within, and

day and night they never cease to sing, ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who

was and is and is to come.’” This passage takes the angelic liturgy of Isaiah, combines it

with Ezekiel 1 (the “living creatures”), and may refer to God’s name in Exod. 3:14: the

was, is, and coming one referring to the LXX translation of “he who is.”54

Like the Songs, the “Similitudes of Enoch” depicts conjoined worship of human

and heavenly figures, but culminates in an adaptation of Isaiah 6 with an additional

blessing: “Blessed are you and blessed is the name of the Lord of Spirits forever and

ever” (1 En. 39:12-14). The lengthy passage leading up to this is also in hymnic form,

but is in the descriptive mode of observation, which the Songs often shift to after

exhortation, rather than in the imperative mood of praise. The terminology alternates

between the “dwelling places” and the “resting places” of the holy ones—reminiscent of

the dwelling place (the “Tabernacle”) as a resting place in the Pentateuch (cf. Ps. 132).

The “Similitudes of Enoch” also refer to various orders of heavenly beings—holy ones,

cherubim, seraphim, ophannim, etc.—blessing God, with only a slight glimpse of the

54
The Apocalypse of Abraham 17:8-21 presents a lengthy hymn reminiscent of liturgical fragments found
throughout so-called “Gnostic” texts such as those from Nag Hammadi.
 191

content of that blessing (1 En. 61:7-12). The compilation of praises—blessing,

glorifying, extolling—resembles the style of the Songs.

Yet in the “Similitudes” the worship is a future event: “And it shall come to pass

in those days that the children of the elect and the holy ones [will descend] from the high

heaven and their seed will become one with the children of the people” (1 En. 39:1). The

passages figures a future age of conjoined worship while referring back to Enoch.55 The

“Similitudes” most likely first formed about the same time as the Songs, providing an

important comparative moment. They present eschatological praise, while the Songs

exhort in the present, and, most importantly, on the Sabbath, an element found in only

one other contemporary document: Jubilees, a non-sectarian document found at Qumran.

The Songs provide a present equivalent for what the apocalypses reserve for the

eschatological future or for the afterlife of the righteous dead.56

The Songs never directly refer to Isaiah 6. 57 While the text is concerned with

holiness, it never explicitly invokes the Qedushah. It uses numerous names for the orders

55
The “trishagion” or the “qedushah” is fairly common in later Hekhalot texts. See, e.g., 3 Enoch 22B,
where the rivers of joy, rejoicing, gladness, exultation, love, and friendship flow from the throne of glory
with a sound that crescendos into the trishagion; cf. 3 Enoch 38:1-3; Hekhalot Rabbati §179.
56
Himmelfarb, Ascents to Heaven, 49. She also points out (Ascents to Heaven 51-61) that the “Similitudes
of Enoch,” the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Apocalypse of Zephaniah all use participation in an angelic
liturgy and heavenly priestly investiture to indicate angelic status of a human participant, usually the
righteous of bygone ages.
57
Some see a veiled reference to the Qedushah in Song 7 (4Q403 1i:31), but, as a veiled reference, I resist
the idea that the Songs give evidence to the antiquity of the Rabbinic Qedushah liturgy; the Songs only give
evidence of the idea of earthly/heavenly correspondence of praise and not the content of that praise. It
does, however, provide an interesting analogy; see Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 20-21; Esther
Chazon, "The Qedushah Liturgy and Its History in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls," From Qumran to Cairo:
Studies in the History of Prayer, ed. Joseph Tabory (Jerusalem: Hatsa'at Orhot, 1999) 7-17; Esther G.
Chazon, "Liturgical Communion with Angels at Qumran," Sapiential, Liturgical, and Poetical Texts from
Qumran: Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet, ed. Daniel K. Falk, Florentino García Martínez and
Eileen M. Schuller (Leiden: Brill, 2000) 95-105; Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 137-8.
Nitzan, “Harmonic and Mystical Characteristics,” 177, 180-81; Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, 367-9. Cf. Davila,
Liturgical Works, 91.
 192

heavenly hosts, including luminous and fiery spirits, but never “seraph.” It also does not

refer to the “living creatures” from Ezekiel 1, preferring cherubim or “hosts.” While the

text refers to God’s throne, the imagery derives from Ezekiel rather than Isaiah.

While sometimes referring to “seven wondrous words” (Song 6; 4Q403 li:1-29 +

Mas1k ii:6b-26 + 4Q404 1-2 + 4Q405 3ii) the Songs never report the heavenly beings’

words.58 In this regard, the Songs may be similar to 2 Enoch, where in the sixth heaven

the seven groups of angels with the seven phoenixes, seven cherubim, and seven winged

beings, “having but one voice and singing in unison. And their song is not to be

reported” (2 Enoch 19:6). Either it is impossible to describe, ineffable, or it is forbidden

to report it. Likewise, perhaps in the Songs’ heavenly speech is impossible to report,

being ineffable, or forbidden to report (cf. 2 Cor. 12:4).59

A more proximate source that discusses conjoined angelic and human Sabbath

activities in heaven and on earth is Jub. 2:17-33.60 In this passage God gives the Sabbath

to angels: “And he gave us a great sign, the Sabbath day, so that we might work six days

and observe a Sabbath from all work on the seventh day. And he told us—all of the

angels of the presence and all of the angels of sanctification, these two great kinds—that

we might keep the Sabbath with him in heaven and on earth” (Jub. 2:17-18). The two

highest orders of angels, of the presence and of sanctification, are given the Sabbath.

Lower orders that control things such as the weather cannot rest. Subsequently, God

58
For an attempt to explain why, see Allison, “Silence of the Angels.”
59
Cf. Alexander, Mystical Texts, 98 n. 3., 113-4.
60
Parts of 1 Enoch and Jubilees were found in multiple copies at Qumran. 1 Enoch has nine copies, four
dealing with the astrological book, while Jubilees has seven copies. Both 1 Enoch and Jubilees antedate the
sectarian establishment, but they have strong affinities in theology, angelology, and calendar. They were
used by the community and became sources for sectarian literature. Jubilees is even alluded to in the
Damascus Document; Newsom, “Sectually Explicit,” 169-70.
 193

gives the Sabbath to a small group of people on earth (Israelites/Jews), who are equated

in holiness with the Sabbath: “Just as I have sanctified and shall sanctify the Sabbath day

for myself thus shall I bless them. And they will be my people and I will be their God”

(Jub. 2:19). The passage creates a mirrored relationship between the angelic and human

communities. A special group of angels and a special group of humans are separated out

from others to be sanctified and rest on the seventh day. It is something they all (God,

angels, and Jews) do together and in imitation of one another: “And thus he created

therein a sign by which they might keep the Sabbath with us on the seventh day, to eat

and drink and bless the one who created all things just as he blessed and sanctified for

himself a people who appeared from all the nations so that they might keep the Sabbath

together with us” (Jub. 2:21-22). The passage emphasizes the joint activities of humans

and angels; from the angelic perspective, the sons of Jacob keep the Sabbath “with us.”61

The passage continues to discuss the types of work prohibited on the Sabbath and

the consequences of “polluting” the Sabbath (cf. Jubilees 50), but it continually reinforces

that the Sabbath acts as the temporal intersection between angels and humans and

between heaven and earth. It points out that the angelic practice of observing, blessing,

and praising on the Sabbath preceded any human involvement: “On this day we kept the

Sabbath in heaven before it was made known to any human to keep the Sabbath thereon

upon the earth” (Jub. 2:30). It is a heavenly institution given to earth, and humans do it at

the command of God and in imitation of the angels and, thereby, the humans become

61
Cf. Apoc. Abr. 17:2, in which Abraham and his angelic guide praise God together in a long excerpt that
resonates with the Psalms and with emergent “gnostic” traditions, such as the Three Steles of Seth.
 194

angelic in holiness and blessedness: “And every man who guards it and keeps therein a

Sabbath from all his work will be holy and blessed always like us” (Jub. 2:28).62

Jubilees, therefore, provides the most proximate analogue of angelic liturgical

activities to the Songs and supplies the first reference of a heavenly Sabbath performed

by the angels, and, subsequently, by humans with and in imitation of the angels in order

to become, at least one day a week, angelic. Both works move from creation to Moses’

revelation on Sinai, finally bringing creation and Sabbath rest together again, yet in a

heavenly dimension.63 They are complementary: Jubilees provides the etiology of

angelic Sabbath observance and human participation with angels, while the Songs

perform this human participation in the angelic liturgies. While references to a heavenly

liturgy (e.g., Isaiah 6) or to a heavenly Sabbath observance (e.g., Jubilees 2) are brief,64

for the Songs the Sabbath and Sabbath liturgies are both the organizing structure and

primary topic in the text:65 they are the songs jointly performed by the human and

heavenly communities on the Sabbath. Yet by evoking and invoking the heavenly

participants, the human participants ritually create a heavenly context for their praise.

Conjoined Worship in Qumran Literature: The Songs and the Hodayot

Qumran literature frequently conjoined human and angelic priesthoods. It is well

established that the Qumran community viewed themselves as united with the angelic

priesthood, intermingling with them while maintaining a sense of unworthiness. The

62
Cf. Job 38:7, where the sons of god praise in response to creation.
63
Cf. Newsom, Songs, 68-9.
64
Cf. the length, however, of Apocalypse of Abraham 17:8-21.
65
The Sabbath is a central preoccupation of Jubilees, providing its foundation, organization, and framing.
 195

Community Rule, for example, shows a conjoined human/angelic community in the

context of the eschatological temple (esp. 1QS 11:7b-9a). The Thanksgiving Hymns or

Hodayot (1QHa I-XXVI) bring the combined angelic/human priestly community together

most clearly, while making a clear distinction between the two, demonstrating the human

unworthiness to join the angelic ranks even in the midst of the human joining them.66

Unlike the Songs, the Hymns are sectarian by authorship.67 A few of the Hymns

may derive from the Teacher of Righteousness, but such an attribution is impossible to

determine. While the Hymns emphasize the human’s lowly condition as a thing of dust

and clay, they are strengthened by God and allowed to join with the angelic “sons of

God.”68 In Hymn 10 (1QHa XI 19-36) following Puech’s reconstruction, God has

cleansed a “perverse spirit” so that it may “stand” among the “holy ones,” joining the

“community” of the “congregation” of the “sons of heaven.” In parallelistic fashion,

“holy ones” are equated with the “sons of heaven.” The term “holy ones” emphasizes

both their exalted status and priestly role. It is in this “congregation” and “community,”

the great ‫( יחד‬yahad) that the human’s “perverse” spirit enters.

66
These qualities are found in nearly every hymn in the collection, but see particularly Hymns 2, 3, 5, 6,
10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, using Puech’s reconstruction, which recent editions of the Dead Sea
Scrolls texts and translations follow. E. Puech, "Quelques aspects de la restauration du Rouleau des
Hymnes," JJS 39 (1988): 38-55.
67
James R. Davila, "The Hodayot Hymnist and the Four Who Entered Paradise," RevQ 17 (1996): 461 n.
8.
68
These translations are partly my own, but depend on the text and translations of Florentino García
Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1997-8)
1:147-203; Gerza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin, 1997 [original
1962]) 243-300. Newsom (Self as Symbolic Space, 220, 228-30, 261-73, 348) argues that the more the
singer negates oneself, the more God can strengthen him, the more that person can become a site of divine
activity. She calls this overall pattern of such a strong voice to emphasize the nothingness of that voice so
that God can more effectively use that voice as the “masochistic sublime.”
 196

This phrasing of joining with the Holy Ones and the Sons of Heaven recur

throughout the Hymns. In Hymn 21 (1QHa XIX 3-14), God purifies a human from sin,

uncleanness, and wickedness, “that he may be one [with] the children of your truth and

partake of the lot of your holy ones.” Joint praise between men and the “company of [the

Sons of Heaven],” each according to one’s own understanding, suggesting a

differentiation among the joint worship, recurs in Hymn 22. In Hymn 14 (1QHa XIV 1-

XV 5), the humans of the “council” “share a common lot with the angels of the presence”

(XIV 12-13), one of the highest rankings of angels, likely mirroring the ranks of those of

the council in the sectarian community. This particular Hymn portrays a high status

among this special group in the community: they are counted among the highest of

angels despite their lowliness as human dust and clay in the language of the Hymns.

Finally, the “Self-Glorification Hymn,” which sometimes appears with the Hymns

(4Q427 7i-9 + 1QH 26 6-16 + 4Q471b + 4Q491c 1), uses a slightly different vocabulary

more accordance with the Songs, speaking of the divine beings in heaven as “gods”:69

“For I am made to stand with the gods…. [alt. With the gods is my station].” Being made

to stand indicates angelic status, while, earlier in the hymn, the human figure may claim

to be enthroned, further claiming “I am counted among the gods and my dwelling is in

the holy congregation” (4Q491c:6-7).70 This startling placement of a human figure in the

heavenly realm, perhaps enthroned and also “made to stand with the gods” is juxtaposed

69
The Psalms also call other heavenly beings “gods.” See Ps. 82:1-2; 86:2; 89:6.
70
See Morton Smith, "Two Ascended to Heaven-Jesus and the Author of 4Q491," Jesus and the Dead Sea
Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 290-301; J. J. Collins, "A Throne in the
Heavens: Apotheosis in Pre-Christian Judaism," Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys, ed. J. J.
Collins and M. Fishbane (Albany: SUNY Press, 1995) 43-58; Martin Abegg, "Who Ascended to Heaven?
4Q491, 4Q427, and the Teacher of Righteousness," Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls,
ed. C.A. Evans and P.W. Flint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 61-73; Davila, “Heavenly Ascents,” 473-6.
 197

in an overlapping fragment earlier in the hymn, “[who has been] despised like [me]...[and

who suffers] evil like me?” (4Q471a 1-3:1-2). Yet such self-description of being

despised directly proceeds to self-glorification, “who is like me among the gods […who

can measure what issues from my lips, who] will summon me with the tongue […I am

the friend of the kin]g, companion of the holy ones.” (4Q427 7i+9:8-10). In this case,

even though the hymnist claims to be unique among the gods, much like God in Exod.

15:11, he differentiates himself from God, being a “friend of the king,” that is, a friend of

God, and “companion of the holy ones,” having a place among the angels.

This juxtaposition of being despised and exalted brings Song 2 to mind: “How

shall we be reckoned [among] them? And our priesthood, how in their dwellings?”

(4Q400 2:6). Like Song 2, this text emphasizes both the human’s unworthiness to join

with the heavenly host due to the being merely “dust and ashes” (Hymns) or having a

“tongue of dust” (Song 2), and the fact that these humans do join with the heavenly host,

who are “gods.” Moreover, like the Songs, this hymn primarily issues imperatives to

“chant,” “exult,” “give thanks,” and “extol,” yet the language clearly indicates that the

commands are directed toward the earthly community to join the heavenly community,

saying to do these things “with the eternal host,” “in the common assembly with the

gods.” Again, the text emphasizes the unworthiness of the human community.

The Thanksgiving Hymns present a similar perspective to the Songs in which

humans join with the heavenly beings. Both emphasize the humans’ unworthiness to join

as well as their exaltation to great status, being equated even with the angels of the

presence. This status is further emphasized in the last quote, in that they were “made to

stand with the gods,” or “with the gods is my position.” Being made to stand like and
 198

with the angels is a sign that the person has been transformed into a new state, either

angelified, or, using the language of this particular hymn, divinized. The difference is

that the Hymns exhort the community to praise among and with the “gods” in the

“common assembly,” while the Songs exhort the divine beings themselves to praise,

although Song 2 also exhorts the human community.71 The Hymns and the Songs can be

seen as complementary: one directed to humans and one directed to divine beings. Yet

the Songs take place exclusively on the Sabbath, whereas the Hymns have no fixed

temporal appointment. While at least one of the Hymns imagines itself as taking place in

the heavenly realm, the Songs completely occur in the heavenly realm and depict its

surroundings in detail as it commands all aspects of exalted heights, including the

carvings on the walls and the floors to praise the God of Gods.72

Conclusion

In addition to Songs’ affinities with the Berakhot and the Songs of the Sage due to

their shared interest in the heavenly sanctuary, they share conceptual similarities with the

pre-sectarian Jubilees’ and the sectarian Thanksgiving Hymns’ in terms of conjoined

worship on the Sabbath and conjoined communities of angels and humans respectively.

71
This difference dissolves if one follows Fletcher-Louis’s argument that the Songs demonstrate an
angelified or “angelomorphic” priesthood—that the human community had, like the ascent figures in the
apocalypses, became transformed into heavenly beings themselves.
72
Alexander (Mystical Texts, 88-9, 91 n. 8) offers the possibility of the Self-Glorification Hymn being
passed down in the office of the Maskil, and that the exalted status is attained by the Maskil. In turn, the
Maskil acts like a mystagogue to the community, leading them on a similar exaltation in the Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrifice. As such, he suggests that this hymn may precede the sequence of the Sabbath Songs,
which are “for the Maskil,” establishing the Maskil’s credentials to lead the community liturgically into the
heavenly sanctuary. He alternatively suggests that it might succeed the series of Sabbath Songs, aligning
the high priestly garments from Song 13 with the glorification and exaltation of the Maskil. He brings in
Dan. 12:3 as a possible basis for this development, where the maskilim “shine like the brightness of the
firmament” and “bring the many to righteousness” so that they become “like stars forever and ever.”
 199

The Songs were the first works, however, to align Sabbath worship with the sanctuary in

a heavenly setting in terms of liturgy. After the Songs, the only other document from this

period that features the Sabbath and the Tabernacle in a heavenly setting is the Epistle to

the Hebrews. Instead of exhorting angels to perform their Sabbath liturgies, however,

Hebrews exhorts its human listeners to “enter” the Sabbath rest, which is figured as both

the heavenly Promised Land and the heavenly Tabernacle. In both works, the human

community acts as a heavenly priesthood in the heavenly sanctuary.

 200

Chapter 7: From Creation to Revelation: The Ritual Alignment of Sacred Time and

Heavenly Space

In its larger framework, the thirteen songs proceed from the Sabbath of creation

(Song 1) to the Sabbaths surrounding Shavuot (Songs 11 and 12), recreating God’s

creative rest and Moses’ vision on Sinai and Ezekiel’s throne vision. This liturgical

progression mirrors the Pentateuch itself, beginning with creation and culminating in

Shavuot, which commemorates Moses’ revelation on Sinai and liturgically incorporates

Ezekiel’s vision of the throne-chariot.1 In doing so, the Songs coordinate the Sabbath and

the sanctuary within the broader cosmogonic scheme, from God’s creative rest to the

revelation of the Tabernacle and the throne through the series of Sabbaths.

From Creation to Revelation in Jubilees and the Songs

Jubilees shares this movement. In it the angel of the LORD reveals to Moses

everything from creation to the moment of the revelation he is receiving. In this

revelation, there are two appointed times that the highest angels—angels of sanctification

and of the presence—share with humans: the Sabbath (Jub. 2:17-33) and Shavuot (Jub.

1
Given this liturgical aspect, I think the Songs were only performed in the first quarter of the year and not
repeated for each quarter (see Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 19). There is the objection that the
thirteenth Song then a coda, falling outside of this liturgical pattern, and the 364-day, 52-week “solar”
calendar would make the replication easy. This demotion of the thirteenth Song need not be so; the
influence of the liturgical calendar indicates where it fits best in the year, not necessarily the importance of
each Song. While replication is not impossible, the broader movement from the creation Sabbath to
Shavuot makes the first quarter most fitting. Cf. Elior, Three Temples; Alexander, Mystical Texts, 51-2.
 201

6:17-22), the same times in which the Songs take the most interest.2 Shavuot for Jubilees

and for the Dead Sea sectarians was a covenant renewal ceremony. In Jubilees, the

angels celebrated Shavuot, like the Sabbath, from creation. While the Sabbath was given

to Israel, Shavuot was given to Noah but his descendents corrupted it and it was not

renewed until Sinai. The language is unclear whether the angels continued to celebrate it

after Noah, since they celebrated it “until Noah.” Nonetheless, this and the Sabbath mark

the only times celebrated by both angels and humans. Angels and humans also share

circumcision and priestly activities: angels are created already circumcised (Jub. 15:25-

27), while it was given to Abraham as a sign of the covenant, and the Levites are the

earthly counterparts of the angels of the presence (Jub. 30:18; 31:14). The Levites are to

“serve in his sanctuary as the angels of the presence and the holy ones” (31:14). The

shared activities and characteristics match the priestly source’s progression of the

covenant from Abraham (circumcision) to Noah (Shavuot) to Moses (Sabbath).

Although substituting Shavuot for Noah’s bow, they are signs of the covenant

(circumcision and Sabbath) with a covenant renewal ceremony (Shavuot) alongside the

continued service of the Levites as angels of the presence. Again, Jubilees complements

the Songs, which also move from creation to Shavuot, using the Sabbath of conjoined

worship of celestial beings and humans ministering in the presence of the LORD.

2
Other festivals mentioned in Jubilees, such as Sukkoth (Jub. 16:20-31) and Passover (Jub. 49:1-23), have
only human participants, although they are engraved on “heavenly tablets.”
 202

The Sabbath of the Creation of the Cosmos and the Tabernacle

The sectarian solar calendar begins in the spring in Nisan rather than the fall in

Tishri.3 The first day of the year is a Wednesday, representing the fourth day of

creation—time began when God created the celestial elements of the sun, moon, and

stars, which were necessary to keep time (Gen. 1:14-19). The first Song on the

subsequent Sabbath begins the series as follows:

[For the Sage. The song of the sacrifice (‫ )עולת‬of the first Sabb]ath on the fourth
of the first month. Praise the God of… O Gods of all the most holy ones ( ‫קדושי‬
‫)קדושים‬, and in Godhood (‫[ )ובאלוהותו‬for his reign he has established] the most
holy ones among the holy ones of eternity to be for him priests [of the inner
sanctum in the sanctuary of his kingship (‫])קורב במקדש מלכותו‬, servants of the
Presence in the inner chamber (‫ )דביר‬of his Glory. (4Q400 1i:1-3)

The first Sabbath on the fourth day of the first month is the creation Sabbath. During the

first Sabbath the participants establish a trilateral relationship between God, angels, and

humans by reenacting God’s rest and the angels’ original praise on the first Sabbath from

creation, exhorting the “gods of all the most holy ones” to repeat their original response

to God’s creation. Nonetheless, there is not much interest in “creation” events in this

song, but rather interest in “engraved statutes” (‫ ;חרת חוקיו‬4Q400 1i:5) and territories,

and how these celestial beings propitiate on behalf of those who repent of transgression

(4Q400 1i:13-18). This draws upon Sinai imagery, since the only place in the Hebrew

Bible to use the root (‫ )חרת‬is for the tablets God engraves for Moses (Exod. 32:16).

Nonetheless, the establishment of the most holy angels to become priests of the Presence

of the inner chamber of his sanctuary resembles Jubilees. In Jubilees, on the first day of

creation God creates seven orders of angels and the spirits of earthly and heavenly

3
Newsom, “Sectually Explicit,” 178.
 203

creatures, the highest being the angels of the presence and the angels of sanctification—

the same ones who observe the Sabbath (Jub. 2.2). On this day, he creates “all of the

spirits who minister before him.” In turn, these ministers praise and bless God on the

first day. Likewise, the first Song establishes the most holy ones among the holy ones—

that is, the highest-ranking angels—to minister before God in the heavenly sanctuary.

Additionally, the reference to human unworthiness as “tongue of dust” (4Q400

2:7) in Song 2 recalls the reminders of humans being dust and clay in the Thanksgiving

Hymns, both of which reflect Adam’s and humanity’s constitution from dust.4

The Songs invoke the creation Sabbath by starting on that date, by recalling the

establishment of the sanctification of a select group of angels (Jub. 2.2) to worship on the

Sabbath and the subsequent sanctification and blessing of a select group of dusty humans,

the descendents of Adam, to join with the angels each Sabbath (Jub. 2:17-33).

Moreover, given the Songs’ extensive Tabernacle imagery, it is worth noting that

the Tabernacle was constructed on the first day of the first month (Exod. 40:1, 17). The

construction of the Tabernacle also occurs on the fourth day of creation, the first day of

time. On the same day, God’s Glory filled the Tabernacle (Exod. 40:34). As such, the

series of Songs not only commence on the Sabbath after the macrocosmic creation and

the establishment of the angelic priesthood, but the Sabbath after the establishment of the

microcosmic Tabernacle and God’s Glory infilling of it, the “inner chamber of his

4
Cf. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 107-8; Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 220. At the same
time, I think its purpose is the same as the prophetic humiliation trope in which the prophet, seer, or
visionary expresses his own unworthiness, usually in terms of speech ability in prophetic texts or through
prostration (more common in Ezekiel and apocalyptic texts, such as 1 Enoch) in response to divine
revelation and in order to receive further revelation. Humiliation precedes exaltation or the ability to
perceive hidden realities. In this regard, I am in partial agreement, although for some slightly different
reasons, with Fletcher-Louis (All the Glory of Adam, 307) that this is “a prayer for those who are seeking
access to a realm and privileges which are not automatically theirs by right.” I, however, see this as a
distancing within identification of human and divine communities as they are joined together.
 204

Glory.” The creation Sabbath and Tabernacle Sabbath coincide. Since the text evokes

the heavenly tavnit of the Tabernacle, the heavenly original itself, these two amount to

the same thing: the creation of the cosmos, the establishment of the organization of the

firmament’s space and time, is the establishment of the heavenly Tabernacle.

The Revelation Sabbaths of Shavuot: Ritually Aligning Moses’ and Ezekiel’s Visions

While the Songs begin recounting God’s creation Sabbath, they culminate in

Shavuot, the celebration of Moses’ revelation on Sinai alongside Ezekiel’s throne vision,

bringing together the Tabernacle, the ‫תבנית‬, and the throne-chariot. By the time of the

translation of Ezekiel into Greek (in third or second century BCE), the exegesis of the

first chapter had been tied to Ps. 68:17-20, in which the Lord comes from Sinai into the

holy place (the sanctuary) accompanied by “twice ten thousand, thousand upon

thousands” of chariots, connecting Ezekiel’s vision of the throne-chariot to the giving of

the torah at Sinai and the multitude of chariots. It liturgically combines Sinai (the giving

of the law, the covenant, and the vision of the Tabernacle), the sanctuary, and the throne.

This connection exists in the Berakhot liturgies. They were to be performed on

Shavuot itself as part of the covenant renewal ceremony (cf. 1QS i-ii). These liturgies,

like Songs 11 and 12, discuss God’s heavenly throne-room, his seat, and his chariots with

cherubim and ophannim (4Q286 lii). Shavuot, according to the sectarian calendar, falls

on the fifteenth day of the third month. Song 11, which falls on the day before, depicts

angels praising in paradoxical silence and stillness in the inner chamber with the animate

celestial architecture alongside multitudes of chariots as in Psalm 68 (4Q405 18 + 20i;

4Q405 19 + 11Q17 vi; 11Q17:1-2). Subsequently, Song 12 brings together the

 205

Tabernacle, language of the “pattern,” and the throne-chariot from Ezekiel 1. The

Shavuot liturgy of Ps. 68:17-20 and Ezekiel 1 have clearly influenced both Songs 11 and

12, which already share overlaps with the sectarian Shavuot liturgies, the Berakhot.5

The Sabbath Liturgy as the Ritual Temporal Access to the Heavenly Sanctuary

While the Songs coordinate holy space and holy time in their liturgical reckoning

from creation to revelation, they also do so by coordinating the heavenly sanctuary and

the Sabbath, making the Sabbath the day on which the heavenly sanctuary can be

invoked. This recalls the equation of sanctuary and Sabbath in the Pentateuch and

Ezekiel—their equivalence in holiness,6 and due to the liturgical setting it recalls the Day

of Atonement as the ultimate coordination of holy space and time since: it was the

holiest day when the holiest person entered the holiest place (‫)דביר‬. Likewise, here one

joins in praise of the heavenly beings in the heavenly holy of holies on the holy Sabbath.

It further resonates with Moses and partly with Ezekiel. The Songs reenact

Moses’ vision doubly. While invoking creation and Tabernacle, they reenact Moses’

vision on Sinai by culminating in Shavuot and by doing so on the seventh day. Moses

had his vision of the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all of its accoutrements

interlaced with the Sabbath “on the seventh day”:

Then Moses went up on the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain. The
glory of the LORD settled on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days; and
on the seventh day he called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud. Now the
appearance of the glory of the LORD was like a devouring fire on top of the
mountain in the sight of the people of Israel. And Moses entered the cloud, and
went up on the mountain. (Exod. 24:15-17a).

5
Carol A. Newsom, "Merkabah Exegesis in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot," JJS 38.1 (1987): 29.
6
See the brief comments by Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 20.
 206

Immediately after this passage, Moses sees the ‫ תבנית‬of the Tabernacle and the ‫ תבנית‬of its

implements. In Jub. 1:2-3, God initially speaks to Moses on the sixteenth day of the third

month—the day after sectarian Shavuot; the glory of the Lord covers the mountain for six

days, then on the seventh day—the 23 day of the third month—calls to him and reveals

everything to him. Jubilees, however, makes this seventh day not the Sabbath; it happens

on Monday. The Songs, by contrast, bring together the Sabbath and the seventh-day

revelation: the Sabbath is the day of revelation. In the Songs, every seventh day, one has

a vision of the heavenly sanctuary just as Moses did. What is more, three Songs (Songs

7, 12, and 13) use the same language of ‫תבנית‬, and extensively invoke Tabernacle

imagery (Songs 7, 10, 12, 13) alongside nearly every other temple tradition.

In the Pentateuch Moses’ ascent on the seventh day initiates the pattern of six-

plus-seven: after six days of the dark cloud on the seventh day Moses enters the dark

cloud to receive a revelation of the Tabernacle in six commands, the seventh command

being to observe the Sabbath, culminating in the actual building of the Tabernacle which

begins on the Sabbath, occurring in seven steps, completed by the glory of God covering

the tent in a cloud, filling the Tabernacle, and reflecting the description of the cloud

descending upon Sinai. Beginning with seventh Song, the Songs depict the heavenly

sanctuary in increasing references to the ‫ תבנית‬and Tabernacle every seventh day,

mirroring Moses’ vision of the ‫ תבנית‬of the Tabernacle and its implements on the seventh

day. Thus, the Songs mirror Moses’ seventh-day vision of the Tabernacle by invoking

the heavenly Tabernacle on the Sabbath every seven days, and through the culmination

around Song 12 just after Shavuot, celebrating and combining Moses’ and Ezekiel’s
 207

vision of the “appearance of the glory of the LORD” (Exod. 24:16) or the “appearance of

the likeness of the glory of the LORD” (Ezekiel 1:29) of the sanctuary and the throne.

Conclusion

The coordination of heavenly space-time follows a liturgical pattern from creation

to revelation of the Tabernacle and its throne on Shavuot, mirroring the broader pattern of

the Pentateuch itself, and by again bringing together the heavenly sanctuary and the

Sabbath by invoking the heavenly sanctuary and its “structure/pattern” on the Sabbath,

entwining the two as the Pentateuch does. It is an intersection of textualization and

ritualization, since it is a liturgical document that is part of a ritual event that draws upon,

reenacts, and reinterprets a mythic event already existing in texts like the Pentateuch and

Ezekiel and preexisting rituals such as Shavuot. The ritual event, moreover, no longer

just coordinates holy space and holy time, but heaven and earth, and humans and angels.7

The compounding of imagery from Ezekiel adds greater vividness to this larger pattern of

Sabbath (every song), creation (Song 1), Tabernacle (Songs 7, 10, 12, 13), and

enthronement (Song 12) within which priestly sacred space-time consists.

7
Cf. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 474-5.
 208

Chapter 8: The Heavenly Tabernacle, Its “Tavnit,” and Its Throne-Chariot

As one approaches Shavuot, references to Exodus increase with imagery from

Ezekiel. In its eclecticism, the Songs bring together many sanctuary traditions, and

thereby becomes the first to integrate the Pentateuchal traditions of the Tabernacle, its

“pattern,” and its relationship with the Sabbath into heavenly sanctuary speculation.

While Newsom notes interconnections between Ezekiel 40-43 in Songs 9 and 12 to

discuss the framework of Songs 9-13 in terms of Ezekiel’s temple tour,1 the

interconnections in terms of structure, language, and imagery with Exodus 25-31 are

coextensive if not more prevalent.

Language of the Tabernacle, its throne, its curtain, and the high priest’s vestments

appear in Songs 7, 10, 12, and 13, mirroring Exodus 25, 26, 25 again, and 28 and 38.

This imagery is governed, as it is in Exodus, by the language of ‫ תבנית‬or “pattern” or here

“structure” in Songs 7, 12, and 13. It is interwoven with technical Tabernacle

terminology of “multicolored,” “woven workmanship,” and “purely salted” and with

vivid imagery and terminology from Ezekiel’s throne-chariot vision.

The Songs extensively use the language of the Tabernacle and ‫תבנית‬. Jonathan

Klawans, following George Buchanan Gray,2 has argued that the ‫ תבנית‬from Exodus

cannot be a priori understood to undergird the concept of a permanent temple structure in

1
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 51-55.
2
Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 153-157; cf. Newsom, Songs, 60.
 209

heaven.3 An ideal pattern, plan, or paradigm appears in documents without a heavenly

sanctuary (2 Baruch 4:5; Philo, Life of Moses, 2:74-6; Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities,

11:15; Wisd. Sol. 9:8),4 and a heavenly sanctuary appears in documents without any

reference to a paradigm, plan, or ‫( בתנית‬1 Enoch, TLevi, etc.).

Although some texts did little with the concept of the divinely revealed pattern

(Pseudo-Philo), others expanded it into something conceived by God from creation

(Wisdom of Solomon). In 2 Baruch, it is something preserved by God, shown, given to,

and taken from Adam along with Paradise, and restored in the future. Philo explained it

in terms of a two-step process of World of Ideas (pattern) being impressed onto the mind

(type) and, in turn, onto the sensible world (copies). Although the pattern revealed to

Moses has often been discussed as the progenitor of the concept of the heavenly temple

that mirrored the earthly temple in second temple Jewish apocalyptic literature, no text

that discusses the heavenly sanctuary (e.g., 1 Enoch, Testament of Levi) explicitly cites

or implicitly alludes to Moses’ vision, although are allusions to Ezekiel 40-48.5 2 Baruch

may imply such a notion, since it is preserved with God until it is finally reestablished on

earth in the future city/paradise, yet, as such, it does not indicate a permanent heavenly

structure. Although all of these examples conceived of the pattern differently, they all—

except Pseudo-Philo—constructed something more enduring than a physical building in a

period fraught with tension and unease, something that existed within the mind of God or

that was with God from creation and would be revealed again.

3
Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 129; cf. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 267 n. 46.
4
Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 128.
5
See Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 153-7; Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 9-28.
 210

While Klawans argues that the concept of a heavenly paradigm and the heavenly

temple come together for the first time in Hebrews 8:1-5, the convergence occurs slightly

earlier. Instead, the pattern Moses saw and the heavenly sanctuary will be first aligned in

the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice quickly followed by the Epistle to the Hebrews. Both

works, too, make it into something enduring: a permanent heavenly “structure.” The

tavnit, therefore, cannot be used for the heavenly temple tradition until the Songs, except

the terminology has shifted in meaning from “pattern” to “structure”; the ‫ תבנית‬is not just

a pattern but the thing itself. The Songs thereby bring together two separate traditions for

the first time: the tavnit of the Tabernacle and the heavenly orientation, transforming the

revealed pattern or plan into an enduring heavenly structure. By thus reinterpreting

Moses’ vision of the "‫ תבנית‬of the Tabernacle,” the participants evoke and participate in

the heavenly reality that Moses saw, reenacting Moses’ vision.

When the work reaches its first climactic moment in Song 7, the term

“Tabernacle” occurs for the first time in heavenly sanctuary speculation. Concurrently,

the word ‫ תבנית‬appears four times to refer to the entire framework of the entire heavenly

vision, invoking Exodus 25. The next “climax” of Song 12 also invokes the ‫ תבנית‬of the

“throne-chariot,” itself residing within a “Tabernacle.” As in Exodus 40, it is dwelling

place of God’s glory, which fills the Tabernacle.

Song 12 draws heavily upon Ezekiel 1. In fact, one can line them up side-by-side,

with the only difference being that instead of seeing a “likeness” of a throne, the

participant sees the ‫ תבנית‬of the throne-chariot, introducing the term from Moses’ vision

into Ezekiel’s throne vision, all of which is framed in terms of the Tabernacle. The
 211

participants sought to see what both Moses and Ezekiel saw, co-activating Exodus 25 and

Ezekiel 1 to indicate that Moses’ and Ezekiel’s visions were the same reality.

The terminological and textual references do not end there. Song 10 appropriates

the veil of Exodus 26, a distinctly priestly concept that appears only in Moses’ vision on

Sinai and in the Chronicler’s reworking of the material in 1 Kings. Song 13 invokes the

high priest’s breastplate and ephod, again using the terminology of ‫ תבנית‬as it is still

governed by the “pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of its accoutrements” from

Exodus 25-31, here specifically Exodus 28. More precise Tabernacle language from

Exodus 25-30, such as “multicolored,” “woven workmanship,” and “purely salted” or

“purely blended,” are further sprinkled throughout Songs 9-13. The compounding of

Exodus and Ezekiel attempts to recapture the visions of Moses and Ezekiel, bringing

them together as a single heavenly reality accessible on the Sabbath.

Song 7: The ‫ תבנית‬and ‫ מבנית‬and the Tabernacle

Song 7 provides a broad vision of the foundations, pillars,6 and overall

construction that constitutes the demarcation of the holy space of the heavenly

Tabernacle, while the subsequent Songs will progress inwardly into the inner shrine until

the last section of Song 13 provides a summation of all that came before. This Song has

been considered the climax, a preliminary crescendo, or a microcosm of the Songs as a

whole.7 All agree that it is a heightened moment, serving as a transition point. In a series

6
1 Kings 7:15-22; 2 Chr. 3:15-17; cf. Ezek. 40:49; cf. Job 26:11; 1 Enoch 18:3, 11; 3 Enoch 38:1.
7
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 13-17; Christopher Morray-Jones, "The Temple Within,"
Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism, ed. April D. DeConick (Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature, 2006) 162; Boustan, “Angels in the Architecture,” 200-201.
 212

of songs sung every seventh day, the seventh song within that series, which is also the

middle of the series, takes on heightened importance: it is the seventh Song, juxtaposed

with two songs in which the number seven figures prominently, and, unlike the other

Songs, opens with a sequence of seven elaborate calls to praise. Its second section,

moreover, anticipates the imagery to come in Songs 9-13. The seventh Song is quite

distinctive in the songs sung every seventh day.

The first appearance of the terminology of the ‫ תבנית‬with regard to the heavenly

sanctuary coincides with the first occurrence of the Tabernacle. In the first fragment

(4Q403 li:30-47 + 4Q404 3-5 + 4Q405 4-5, 6:1-8), ‫ תבנית‬appears alongside a new

rhyming synonym, ‫מבנית‬, which occurs twice (and once in 11Q17 i = 4Q403 li 48-50). In

another major fragment, the ‫ תבנית‬appears twice, framing the imagery of the heavenly

holy of holies: the Tabernacle. Yet this terminology from Exodus 25:9, 40 has

undergone its own transformation attending to the heavenly sanctuary revolution: it has

shifted from “pattern” to the “structure,” from a pattern or plan to the thing itself:

With these let praise all the fo[undations of the hol]y of holies ( ‫כול י[סודי קוד]ש‬
‫)קודשים‬, the supporting pillars of the most exalted abode (‫ )לזבול רום רומים‬and all
the corners of its construction [‫]מבניתו‬. Si[ng to] G[od, fe]arsome of strength, [all
spirits of knowledge and light] to [lift] up together the most pure firmament ( ‫רקיע‬
‫ )זו טוהר טוהורים‬of his holy sanctuary. [And praise H]im, spirits of Go[d,] for
thanksgivin[gs forever and e]ver of the chief firmament on high (‫רקיע רוש‬
‫)מרו[מ]ים‬, all [its] b[eams] and its walls, a[l]l its [constr]uction (‫)מבניתו‬, the works
of [its] struc[ture.] (‫( )תבניתו‬4Q403 li: 41-44)8

In the context of this passage, the ‫ תבנית‬refers back to the “chief firmament” (‫)רקיע רוש‬.

The firmament itself is paralleled, appearing in two lines in a row, with “most pure

8
All translations of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice are my own unless otherwise indicated. I have
consulted the texts and translations in Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice; García Martínez and
Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls; and Davila, Liturgical Works.
 213

firmament of his holy sanctuary” and “chief firmament on high,” the repetition

heightening its imagery. “Firmament” is often understood as a technical term for one of

the levels of heaven, often the highest heaven. In the Songs it tends to refer to the

expanse above the cherubim upholding God’s throne (Song 12). “Its construction”

(‫ )מבניתו‬either refers back to the “holy of holies” (‫ )קוד]ש קודשים‬or the “most exalted

abode” (‫)לזבול רום רומים‬, which amount to the same thing: the heavenly holy of holies is

the most exalted abode. The doubling of “construction” and “structure” at the end of the

passage clearly refers to this most exalted, pure firmament with beams, walls, pillars,

speaking of its construction and structure to cover its entirety.

“Construction” (‫ )מבנית‬and “structure” (‫ )תבנית‬share the root ‫בנה‬, which means “to

build,” and so in their simplest sense mean “something built.” The first term, ‫מבנית‬, never

appears in biblical Hebrew, although it does appear elsewhere in the Qumran corpus

(e.g., 4Q511 111:8 and 1QHa:40).9 In 1QHa:40, part of the Thanksgiving Hymns, it

appears in an hymn related to the self-enthronement text, also using throne imagery as the

terminology here also often suggests. In this other text, the word is used as ‫ מבניתי‬or “my

structure/construction.” And yet, in the line itself, it appears in parallel fashion with

“limbs,” which suggests some other connotation, such as form. On the other hand, as

already discussed, ‫ תבנית‬appears throughout the Bible in rather conspicuous places where

it carries many senses, meaning “pattern” (Exod 25:9, 40), “plan” (1 Chron 28:11, 18),

“copy” (Josh 22:28), and “form” (Deut 4:16-18; Ezek 8:3). In Qumran literature, the

word also refers to the “construction” of Adam by God (1QM x:14; cf. 4QInstruction =

9
See Davila, Liturgical Works, 124.
 214

4Q417 1:14-18, where Enosh is modeled after the “pattern of the holy ones”).10 The

usage of the terminology in the context of the heavenly sanctuary, however, activates the

priestly tradition’s usage (Exod. 25:9, 40; 1 Chron. 28:11, 18), where the recurring and

repetitive terminology regards the ideal form of the temple revealed to Moses by God or

to Solomon by David and to David, in turn, by God.

This usage of ‫ תבנית‬and ‫ מבנית‬with regard to the “most holy place,” the “most

exalted abode,” the “pure firmament of the holy sanctuary,” and “the chief firmament on

high” situates the terminology of ‫ תבנית‬and ‫ מבנית‬squarely with regard to the heavenly

sanctuary. There is one other text that likewise uses both terms in the same breath: the

Berakhot liturgies, again in the context of the heavenly sanctuary. These texts describe

God’s throne-room and the heavenly sanctuary as “a foundation of wisdom and the

structure of knowledge” as well as “constructions of righteousness” (4Q286 lii:6, 7) and

elsewhere in the general context of the celestial temple, but without a clear antecedent,

“[struc]tures of their adornment” (4Q287 2:2). Moreover, the usage of these two words

as umbrella terms to cover the beams and walls indicates a shift from the “pattern” from

Exodus and the “plan” from Chronicles to something more substantial, to a “structure” in

the heavenly holy of holies of the most exalted abode. The synonymous usage of

“construction” (‫ )מבנית‬alongside ‫ תבנית‬intensifies this conception.

The activation of Exodus traditions of the tavnit to depict the heavenly sanctuary

increases as the fragments progress, beginning to pick up language from Ezekiel.

[from the midst of…] perfect light, multicoloredness (‫ )רוקמת‬of a mos[t] holy
spirit […the King of all…] high places of knowledge and on His footstool […of
wonder…] appearance of a glorious structure (‫ )מראי תבנית כבוד‬for the chiefs of
the kingdom of spi[rits of…] His glory. And in all their turnings the gates of .[…]
10
See Davila, Liturgical Works, 124-5.
 215

the goings of sprinklers of [glo]w[ing coals of fire…]11.. to the chief12 of the gods
of […] from among them the g[od]s run like the appearance of glowing coals of
[fire…] walking around. Most holy spirits (‫ )רוחות קודש קודשים‬.[…] M[os]t holy
[spirits], spirits of God, an ete[rnal] appearance ..[…] and spirits of God, shapes
of flaming fire around […] wondrous spirits and the Tabernacle of the exalted
chief (alt. most exalted Tabernacle; ‫)ומשכן רוש רום‬, the glory of His kingdom, the
inner chamber […] and He sanctifies the seven exalted holy (places? ones?) and
the voice of blessing is from the chiefs of His inner chamber […] and the voice of
the blessing {is heard} is glorified by the hearing of the gods and the councils of
(‫ ]…[ )ומוסדי‬the blessing. And all the crafted furnishings (‫ )מחשבי‬of the inner
cham[ber] hasten with wondrous psalms in the inner cham[ber…] of wonder,
inner chamber to inner chamber with the sound of holy tumult )‫(המוני קודש‬. And
all their crafted furnishings […] and the chariots of His inner chamber praise
together and their cherubim and th[eir] ophannim bless wondrously […] chiefs of
the divine structure (alt. structure of the gods; ‫)ראשי תבנית אלוהים‬. And they
praise Him in the holy inner chamber. (4Q403 lii:1-17 + 4Q404 6)

This extended passage constitutes the end of Song 7.13 It places a great emphasis on

spirits (‫)רוחות‬, the most common term for heavenly beings in the Songs.14 The language

of “structure” frames this fragment, placing the “Tabernacle of the exalted chief” or the

“most exalted Tabernacle” (‫ )משכן רוש רום‬between the “appearance of a glorious

structure” (‫ )כבוד מראי תבנית‬and “divine structure” or “structure of gods” (‫)תבנית אלוהים‬.

The glorious and divine structure provides the broader context in which all of the imagery

of the heavenly sanctuary—the inner chamber, which is mentioned five times, the

Tabernacle, and its twice-mentioned furnishings—occurs.

By referring to the “appearance of the glorious structure,” the liturgy combines

Ezekiel and Exodus with Ezekiel’s penchant for “appearances” and Exodus’s “structure,”

11
For this reading of this very difficult line, see Davila, Liturgical Works, 128; cf. Newsom, Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrifice, 228.
12
Emended from ‫לדוש‬, “to crush,” to ‫לרוש‬, “to the chief.”
13
This is rather clear in the text. After the final line, there is a blank line (line 17) and the following line
begins: ‫למשכיל שיר עולת השבת השמינית בשלושת וע[שרים לחודש השני הללו‬.
14
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 25.
 216

or this term provides a common point between them, since both refer to the “appearance

[of the likeness] of the glory of the LORD” (Exod. 24:17; Ezek. 1:28). The passage also

relies upon Ezekiel for the roving “coals of fire” and the ophannim, the wheels of the

chariot (Ezek. 1:16-21) angelified or deified. The cherubim could be substituting for the

“living ones” (Ezek. 1:5-15), something already done in Ezek. 10:15, but they also recall

the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:24) and Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6:23-29, 32, 35). Given

the context of other imagery and language of ‫ תבנית‬and “Tabernacle,” the passage

concurrently recalls the cherubim set on the ark, God’s throne, which is the first aspect of

the Tabernacle revealed to Moses (Exod. 25:18-22). Indeed, Moses meets God “from

between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony” (Exod. 25:22).

With regard to the “divine structure” (‫)תבנית אלוהים‬, Philip Alexander proposes

that one should read ‫ אלוהים‬substantively rather than adjectivally: the “structure of the

gods.”15 Moreover, it is not just possessive “of the gods” but constitutive of the nature of

the structure: the “structure” itself is made out of the gods or their praises. The various

groups of angels praising throughout begin to “raise” the heavenly sanctuary itself out of

their praises. I think a case can be made that the heavenly priestly choirs, but maybe not

the praises themselves, constitute the sanctuary. Firstly, the throne itself has a long

tradition of being made out of angels. In Exodus 25 and 1 Kings 6, the throne is

constructed out of the cherubim. In the Songs, the cherubim and the ophannim (the

“wheels”) are living beings. In that sense, the cherubim and ophannim constitute the

“structure” of God’s “throne-chariot” as in Song 12. Songs 9, 10, and 11 emphasize that

the celestial architecture, the walls and floor of the vestibule as well as the veil, is alive.

15
Alexander, Mystical Texts, 30-33.
 217

That the line is blurred between architecture and angel has long been recognized, but it is

possible that, like the throne, the architecture is constructed from angelic beings rather

than angelic beings made from the architecture, who are carved and incised, praising god.

This reading might be bolstered by a passage in Song 12: “every structure of spirits of

wonder ([‫( ”)כול תבנית רוחי פל]א‬11Q17 viii:3). In a passage depicting the “wondrous

firmaments” or “vaults” and the “foundations of the firmament” in the heavenly throne-

room, the inner chamber, this language of “structure of spirits of wonder” suggests that

the inner chamber is constructed out of these wondrous spirits: the heavenly sanctuary

and its accoutrements have been constructed out of living, spiritual beings.

If this is true, it will have further implications for the Songs at Qumran. The

Songs demonstrate conjoined worship of the human and angelic priesthoods, and this

would provide an additional parallel: just as the heavenly sanctuary consists of angelic

beings, so does the human Qumran community consider itself a temple.16 That is how

Davila, for example, interprets the Community Rule, in which the community joins the

“sons of heaven as the council of the community, the company of the holy structure

(‫ )מבנית קודש‬as an eternal planting in every age to come” (1QS xi.7-9; cf. 1QS viii.4-

10).17 The “structure of the gods” in Song 7 would anticipate the animate celestial

architecture of Songs 9, 10, and 11 and the throne-chariot composed out of cherubim and

ophannim in Song 12, itself in the context of the “structure of wondrous spirits.”

An additional part of the framing is the term “multicolored” (‫)רוקמה‬. This word

recurs in Songs 5, 9, 10, 12, and 13, referring to the brickwork (9), the veil (10), inner

16
Alexander, Mystical Texts, 54.
17
Davila, “Hodayot Hymnist,” 468.
 218

chamber (12), and the high priestly vestments (13).18 The root ‫רקם‬, particularly as ‫ריקמה‬,

is most typical of the priestly author in the Pentateuch to describe the skilled woven

multicolored Tabernacle fabrics. The term itself only appears with regard to the outer

hangings and the screen to the outer court (Exod. 26:36; cf Exod. 27:16; 28:39; 38:23). It

has the sense of bringing together variegated materials, either woven or embroidered,

and, due to the Tabernacle passages, accrued a connotation of multicolored fabric; thus, it

is translated for the Songs as colored or multicolored as it recalls the finely woven or

embroidered scarlet, blue, and purple fabrics from the Tabernacle. Although the term

only appears with regard to the outer hangings, the multicolored fabrics of the veil and

priestly garments may imply such workmanship, and the Songs apply it to these materials

as well. It has the same connotation elsewhere in the scrolls (1QM vii 11).19 Just as it is

most correlated with the outer glimpses of the Tabernacle in Exodus, it is an appropriate

image at this juncture with the first glimpse of the celestial Tabernacle in its entirety,

Framed by the “structure,” being “multicolored,” and perhaps made of celestial

beings, this passage is the first of two occurrences of the word “tabernacle” (‫ )משכן‬in the

Songs, and the first in the context of the heavenly sanctuary. The only other parallels

close to this time are the first-century examples of Hebrews (esp. 8:2, 5; 9:11) and

Revelation (13:6; cf. 15:5).20 Likewise, in Song 12 the Tabernacle is the highest heaven,

the most exalted place of the heavenly temple, providing a general context for pervasive

imagery from Ezekiel 1 to depict the “structure of the throne-chariot.”

18
The term also appears in a badly preserved fragment placed in Song 5 (4Q402 2:7). It repeats the
terminology of “workmanship” alongside it, and so it anticipates the better-preserved later Songs.
19
See Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 317.
20
Rev. 13:6 speaks of a “dwelling,” and 15:5, “the temple of the tent of witness.” In a later period, one
finds a Tabernacle in heaven in Sefer Hekhalot, where it is the Tabernacle of the Youth.
 219

Unlike other pluralized terms, “Tabernacle” remains in the singular, although the

related word “dwelling” (‫ )שכן‬also appears as “dwellings” (‫)שכנים‬.21 The two

occurrences of the word “Tabernacle” are conspicuous, being two of the most prominent

Songs in the entire collection. It is not surprising, therefore, that the two Songs have

much in common. In addition to Song 2, they are the only places that speak of the “gods

of knowledge.”22 Both draw upon imagery from Ezekiel 1 more extensively than

anywhere else in the Songs, use the terminology of “structure” and Tabernacle, and have

a heightened frequency of mentioning souls/spirits (‫ )רוחות‬and subsequently the most

holy place, the ‫דביר‬, the inner chamber. In fact, this passage equates the Tabernacle with

the “glory of his kingdom” and “the inner chamber” by piling them onto one another

synonymously in the same line. Moreover, the “chiefs of the inner chamber” parallel

“chiefs of the divine structure.” “Structure,” “Tabernacle,” and “inner chamber”

converge, and, as in the previous passage, the ‫ תבנית‬or structure encompasses the entirety

of the heavenly holy of holies, yet the allusions to Exodus intensify with the

“Tabernacle” itself in its first heavenly appearance.

Like Exodus 25-31 and 35-40, this passage expresses interest in the “furnishings”

of the inner chamber, while being framed by the glorious and divine structure. The

“furnishings” (‫ )מחשבים‬of the Tabernacle, sanctuary, or inner chamber act in the same

21
“Dwellings” designates the stations of the heavenly priesthood in the Songs, and always refers to the
heavenly realm. In the Hebrew Bible it refers to the dwelling of God in heaven (Deut. 26:15) and within
the temple (Ps. 26:8). In Dead Sea sectarian literature, it additionally refers to the community as a temple
(1QS viii:8) and God’s heavenly dwelling place (1QS x:3; 1QM xii:2; 4Q287 2:13; 4Q491c 1:13; 4Q510
1:3; 4Q511 41:1). In the Songs, this term appears a total of eight times (4Q400 2:5, 6 in Song 2; 4Q403
lii:19 + 4Q405 8, 4Q403 lii:45 in Song VIII; 4Q405 17:6 in Song 9). See also Mas1k i:9 (in Song 6),
which speaks of “dwellers in the exalted heights.” See Davila, Liturgical Works, 109.
22
The word “knowledge” (‫ )דעת‬frequently appears throughout the Songs. A recent attempt to understand
the role, quality, and substance of this term in the Songs is Wolfson, “Seven Mysteries of Knowledge.” Cf.
1QS 3-4 in the “Treatise of the Two Spirits” within the Community Rule.
 220

manner as the other beings; as they “hurry with wondrous psalms,” they sing praises

alongside the chariots, the ophannim and cherubim, all of which constitute the “structure”

of the heavenly sanctuary and its throne. This passage, therefore, includes an additional

aspect of the Tabernacle: its furniture. The only difference is that the Exodus word for

“furniture” is ‫)תבנית כל כליו( כלים‬, while the Songs’ word for “furnishings” is ‫יםמחשב‬.

Finally, there is the difficult task of translating the line in which the Tabernacle

appears: ‫ומשכן רוש רום‬. It could be “the Tabernacle of the exalted chief” or “the highest

exalted Tabernacle.” Either it is a Tabernacle that belongs to the exalted chief in his

heavenly abode, also designated as kingdom, clarified as the inner chamber, or the

Tabernacle itself is “chief-most” and exalted, or the most exalted Tabernacle, assuming

the existence of lesser Tabernacles. Newsom recognizes that both translations are

possible, although preferring “Tabernacle of highest loftiness”: “‫ משכן רוש רום‬is probably

to be translated ‘Tabernacle of highest loftiness.’ It is not impossible, however, that ‫רוש‬

could be taken personally, ‘the Tabernacle of the chief of loftiness,’ referring to God or to

a single superior angel whose special privilege is service in the highest sanctuary.”23

Davila’s argument for “Tabernacle of the exalted chief” is more involved. Firstly,

he notes the different uses of the word ‫ רוש‬throughout the Songs. Alternatively spelled

‫ראש‬, it usually refers to a “chief” of some order of divine beings, such as in the “chief

princes.” In a similar move, however, it can refer to the chief example of an order of

objects, such as “the chief firmament on high” (4Q403 li:43). Newsom, therefore,

understands it as chief in an order of objects, whereas Davila considers it as the chief

example in an order of divine beings. The problem, Davila notes, is that while it works in

23
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 235.
 221

Newsom’s usage for other things, such as sanctuaries, thrones, firmaments, and chariots,

which are pluralized throughout the text, the Tabernacle only appears in the singular,

although the word does appear twice: here and in Song 12. There simply are not multiple

Tabernacles in the Songs for there to be a chief-most among them. Moreover, there is no

attestation of multiple Tabernacles in other literature.24

There is an additional issue of word order. When comparing the “chiefs of his

inner chamber” and “chiefs of the divine structure,” the construct chain moves in the

other direction, in which the chiefs belong to the inner chamber or structure. In this line,

however, the word ordering is “Tabernacle of the exalted chief,” making the space belong

to the chief instead of the chief belonging to the space. When glancing ahead at Song 12,

that Tabernacle is the “tabernacl[e of the god/s] of knowledge,” and so this construction

likely reflects a special tendency for the relationship between the highest celestial beings,

a chief angel or God, and the heavenly Tabernacle. Ultimately, the translation of the line

as either the “chief exalted Tabernacle” or the “Tabernacle of the exalted chief” remains

unresolved, but the weight of probability leans towards the latter.

The translation options have further implications. If Davila is correct, then there

would be a connection with Hebrews and 3 Enoch. If this is the Tabernacle of the exalted

chief of the heavenly priesthood, it is the place where the heavenly high priest performs

his liturgical duties. Likewise, in Hebrews, Christ serves as the high priest in the

heavenly Tabernacle. Finally, in 3 Enoch, there are references to “a great Tabernacle of

light on high” (15B:1) and several references to the “Tabernacle of the Youth” (§390;

§399//§476; §488; G9 6b:35-36), “Youth” being a designation for Metatron.

24
Davila, Liturgical Works, 128-9.
 222

If Davila is correct, then who is the “exalted chief” of the Tabernacle? Davila

suggests Melchizedek as a potential candidate, given Melchizedek’s exalted role

elsewhere in the Scrolls, particularly 11Q13.25 There are also three places in the Songs

where the reconstruction of “Melchizedek” is possible. In the very next Song, there is a

possible reference to the “chiefs of princes of a wondrous priesthood of Melchizedek.”

The reference comes from 11Q17 ii:7, in which ‫ למלכ‬survives, except the khaf is corrupt.

After this, as Davila notes, it is tempting reconstruct [‫למלכ ]יצדק‬. Other possibilities

include “of the king [of glory]” ([‫ )למלך ]כבוד‬and “of the kingdom” ([‫)וכ]ותלמל‬. The other

two possible reconstructions occur earlier in the Songs (4Q401 11:3; 22:3). The first

potentially reads as follows: ‫מלכי ]צדק כוהן בעד[ת אל‬. This would be “Melchizedek, the

priest in/among the congregation of God (El).” This would highlight Melchizedek’s

priestly role and the language has a parallel in 11Q13, in which Melchizedek takes upon

the role of the divine judge in the heavenly courtroom:

And he [Melchizedek] will, by his strength, judge the holy ones of God, executing
judgment as it is written concerning him in the Songs of David, who said, ‘Elohim
has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds
judgment’ (Ps. 82:1). And it was said concerning him, ‘(let the assembly of the
peoples) return to the height above them; El will judge the peoples’ (Ps. 7:7-8).

Melchizedek is not only a divine being as elohim and el, but the great divine judge,

holding judgment in the divine courtroom, in the “midst of the gods (‫)אלים‬.” Once again,

the only other text from this time period with a highly exalted Melchizedek figure who is

both a king/judge and priest is Hebrews.26 In Hebrews, Jesus in the order of Melchizedek

is both the enthroned Son and the heavenly high priest. The fragmentary condition of the

25
Davila, Liturgical Works, 129; idem, “Macrocosmic Temple,” 13.
26
Although its dating is uncertain, one should not rule out Melchizedek’s role in 2 Enoch too quickly.
 223

text of the Songs, however, is unfortunate, making any identification between a highly

exalted Melchizedek and the “exalted chief” tentative. The few words that remain are

tantalizingly nevertheless. For example, the previous line preserves the terminology of

the “God (or Gods?) of knowledge” (‫ )א]לוהי דעת‬and, in the line before it, “priests” or

“priests of.” “God/s of knowledge” only survives in Songs 2, 7, 12, and 13 in more intact

fragments. This particular fragment is currently impossible to place, but the

terminological overlaps may suggest that it belongs somewhere around Song 7 or 12.

All that survives in the final fragment is ‫כי ֭צדק‬. It is tempting to fill in the gaps,

creating ‫]מל[כיצדק‬. Unfortunately, even if Melchizedek is a probable reconstruction, its

context is indeterminable. Nevertheless, the previous reconstructions of the “wondrous

priesthood of Melchizedek” and “Melchizedek, a priest in the congregation of God (El)”

are highly suggestive for Song 7 if one translates it as “the Tabernacle of the exalted

chief.” Even if it cannot be placed, Melchizedek’s appearance in the Songs as the only

heavenly figure with a personal name offers a conspicuous connection with Hebrews.

This is the first instance in Jewish literature of a heavenly Tabernacle. It is a

significant development in the concept of the Tabernacle in late second temple Jewish

perceptions of the sanctuary. This text is the first to combine the Tabernacle and its ‫תבנית‬

with the heavenly sanctuary, equating the “structure” with the “Tabernacle” and “inner

chamber” in one fragment as well as framing the Tabernacle and inner chamber in terms

of the ‫תבנית‬. This Song uses both tavnit and the synonymous ‫ מבנית‬with regard to the

“most holy place,” the “most exalted abode,” the “pure firmament of the holy sanctuary,”

and “the chief firmament on high.” It is no coincidence that the first time the

“Tabernacle” is connected with the heavenly sanctuary that the word conspicuously
 224

connected to the revelation of the Tabernacle in Exodus, the Tabernacle’s ‫תבנית‬, also

appears. As such, the pivotal vision in the Songs of the celestial architecture in the

heavenly Tabernacle is the ‫ תבנית‬that Moses saw: the participants in this liturgy seek to

see what Moses saw. While this terminology looks back to Exodus and even Chronicles,

it has become transformed by the addition of language from Ezekiel 1, the compounding

of sanctuary imagery, and become not only a pattern or a plan, but the structure of the

heavenly sanctuary, the inner chamber, the firmament, the Tabernacle, and its

furnishings, recreating Moses’ vision while eclectically including any available sanctuary

imagery. It is possible that Melchizedek as the heavenly high priest presides in this

heavenly Tabernacle, much like in Hebrews, but the manuscripts are unfortunately too

fragmentary to discern this with any degree of certainty.

Song 10: The Tabernacle’s Veil (‫) פרוכת‬: The Boundary of the Most Holy

Due to its greater fragmentary state, Song 10 has received less attention, yet since

it discusses the threshold just before entering the heavenly holy of holies it is an

important liminal moment. While Song 10 does not include such key terms as

“structure” or “Tabernacle,” it has imagery unique to priestly documents: the colorful

veil. The veil, and therefore Song 10, represents the boundary of holy and most holy

space and time; it is the moment just before one enters into the most holy sanctum of the

heavenly Tabernacle to behold the throne-chariot on the Sabbaths surrounding Shavuot.

Fringed border […] And rivers of fire27 […] . […] .. … […] . […] appearance of
flames of fire [ b]eauty of the veil of the inner chamber of the king ( ‫ת]פארת‬
‫ )בפרוכת דביר המלך‬.. […] in the inner chamber of His presence multicolored
27
‫הרי אורוב‬: sometimes translated as “rivers of light.” The phrase also shows up in the Berakhot (4Q286
lii:3) in the context of the heavenly throne-room.
 225

(‫ ]…[ )רוקמה‬all engraved .[…].. shapes of god[s…their works are] glorious from
both sides of them (‫ ]…[ )עבריהם‬veils of the wondrous inner chambers ( ‫פרכות‬
‫)דבירי הפלא‬. And they bless [the gods of all…] their sides; they shall proclaim
[…] . of wonder inside (‫… )מביתה‬28 of the inner chamber [at the exit of the
vestibules] … of wondrous sh[ape]s[… give] thanks to the king of glor[y] with a
chanting voice… (4Q405 15ii-16; cf. 11Q17 v:1-6)

Again, there is a hint of Ezekiel’s language in terms of “appearances of flames of fire”

(‫)מראי להבי אש‬, much like the “something like burning coals of fire” (Ezek. 1:13) or the

“appearance of fire” (Ezek. 1:27). A similar phrase, “shapes of flames of fire” ( ‫להבי אש‬

‫)בדני‬, appears in Song 7 (4Q403 l ii 9). Using slightly different terminology, there are

also “rivers of fire,” based upon Dan. 7:10. The most obvious Tabernacle imagery,

however, concerns the ‫ פרוכת‬and ‫פרכות‬, being the singular and plural forms of

Tabernacle’s “veil.” The veil separates the most holy place which contains the ark/throne

(chariot) within the Tabernacle and temple, and, here, for the heavenly sanctuary.

This terminology is distinctively priestly.29 In the account in 1 Kings of the

building of the temple, there is no curtain or veil separating the sanctuary’s inner and

outer chambers, but rather doors decorated with carved cherubim, palm trees, and flowers

overlaid with gold (1 Kgs 6:31-2). In his description of Herod’s temple, however,

Josephus mentions both doors and a veil, and the veil had a mystical interpretation (War

5.211-14; cf. Philo, Questions on Exodus 2.85).30 According to Philo and Josephus, the

28
Davila reconstructs “scorching heat” (‫ ;)יקדה‬Newsom suggests the possibility of “precious” (‫)יקרה‬.
29
Interest in the veil of the sanctuary is quite rare before the Songs, found only in documents with a priestly
bent: Exodus, 2 Chronicles, and Sirach. The next text, before an explosion of rabbinic attention, to take
such interest will be, quite fittingly, Hebrews, in which the veil becomes equated with Jesus’ flesh (Heb.
10:12) as well as the gospels: there is a correlation between the death of Jesus and the destruction of the
veil in the temple (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). For the later fascination with the veil among
Jewish, Christian, and so-called “Gnostic” sources, see Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes;
Barker, The Gate of Heaven, 104-132.
30
Cf. the symbolism of the high priestly garments in Josephus, Ant. 3.184; Philo, SpecLaws 1.84-97.
 226

veil was an image of the cosmos, with each of its colors representing one of the four

elements: scarlet, fire; fine flax, earth; blue, the air; and purple, the sea. But they had a

conception of the temple as the cosmos, which leads to such interpretations of the temple,

rather than a heavenly/earthly correspondence as found in the Songs.31 In a later text, 3

Enoch 45, Metatron shows R. Ishmael the veil (‫)פרגוד‬, but instead of the cosmos, it

represents time; it has all of history—past, present, and future—embroidered on it.

In the Tabernacle the emphasis lay upon mobility. Instead of engraved figures on

doors, it has embroidered curtains and veils. Thus, Exodus 26 handles the “curtains” of

the Tabernacle, made with twined linen, mixed with blue, purple, and scarlet, and

“skillfully worked” cherubim embroidered into them (Exod. 26:1; cf. Exod. 36:35; Lev.

16:2, 12, 15). The word for curtains is ‫יריעת‬, but the most important hanging is the ‫פרכת‬,

the “veil,” that marks off the most holy place, which likewise is made of twined linen of

blue, purple, and scarlet hues with cherubim embroidered into it (Exod. 26:31; cf. Exod.

36:35).32 It, too, is multicolored workmanship (‫( )רוקמה‬cf. Songs 5, 7, 9, 12, and 13).

Although in the Pentateuch only the outer hangings are “multicolored” (Exod.

26:36; cf Exod. 27:16; 28:39; 38:23), it is implied and the Songs have applied it to the

multicolored veil and priestly garments. The more limited usage of the Pentateuch fits

Song 9, regarding the animate celestial architecture in the nave before one reaches the

veil. Thus, the Sabbath liturgy has applied the language of multicolored woven fabrics

found throughout the description of the Tabernacle from Exodus that has come to mean

31
For this distinction and its significance, see Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 111-44.
32
Cf. the “gold veil” (‫ )פרוכת זהב‬in the Temple Scroll (11Q19vii:13-14).
 227

“colorful” to the veil itself, which like the outer hangings is also scarlet, purple, and blue,

making something implicit in the priestly source explicit.

The Songs, however, combine veil language with engraving (‫ )מחקת‬and “shapes

of gods” (‫)בדני אלו[הים‬. This language derives from a stationary structure, like the

description of the doors in 1 Kings 6:35, except replacing the “carvings of cherubim”

(‫ )מקלעות כרובים‬with “shapes of gods.” This combination of Tabernacle and temple

language from Exodus and 1 Kings continues in Song 11, which depicts the animate,

living celestial architecture, but there it is the splendor of the floor, likely the stone

pavement “like the very heaven” from Exod. 24:10.33 The wall (Song 9) and floor (Song

11) carvings are living beings that can praise God, blurring the distinction between a

wall, a curtain, and a “god.”34 Song 11 contains “shapes of gods, “forms of living gods,”

“shapes of the forms of gods engraved around their glorious bricks, glorious forms of

brickwork of effulgence and adornment, living divinities are all their workmanship and

the forms of their shapes are angels of holiness” (4Q405 19 + 11Q17 vi). The engravings

in Solomon’s temple and the embroidery of the Tabernacle were of cherubim. These

cherubim, as in Song 10, have now become “gods,” “shapes of” and “forms of” gods.

Yet again, precise Tabernacle language blends into the depiction, here that of

“purely salted”: works of spirits of a firmament of wonder, purely salted (‫ טוהר‬,)‫ממולח‬

spirits of the faithful knowledge and righteousness in the holy of holies” (4Q405 19:3-4).

This phrase, “purely salted,” appears in the Songs (4Q405 19 4; 4Q405 22 11; 4Q405 23

33
Baumgarten, “Qumran Sabbath Shirot,” 203-7; cf. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 296.
34
See Boustan, “Angels in the Architecture,” 195-212.
 228

ii 10; and 11QShirShabb 8-7 5) only just before and within the heavenly holy of holies.

It appears in the Hebrew Bible only once and in the context of the Tabernacle:

Take sweet spices, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum, sweet spices with pure
frankinsense (of each shall there by an equal part), and make an incense blended
as by the perfumer with salt, pure and holy (‫ טהור קדש‬and you shall )‫ ממלח‬beat
some of it very small, and put part of it before the testimony in the tent of meeting
where I shall meet with you; it shall be for you most holy. (Exod. 30:34-6).

The “salt pure and holy” (Exod. 30:35) indicates the process of blending of the incense

(cf. Sir. 49:1). In fact, both Strugnell and Newsom translate the term as “purely

blended.”35 This is special incense placed in front of the ark of the testimony, where God

meets Moses from between the cherubim. This most holy incense is set before the most

holy place of the Tabernacle.36 The only difference is that Exodus uses the adjectival

form for “pure,” but the Songs changes it to a noun—literally, “salted of purity.” This

blend, although without the phrase “purely salted,” appears twice in Jubilees: once

regarding Adam’s offering of incense in the Garden of Eden during his expulsion (Jub.

3:27), drawing attention to the identification of Eden with the sanctuary (cf. Jub. 8:19-

20), and again in Abraham’s incense offering for Sukkoth at Beer-Sheba (Jub. 17:24). It

likewise appears in Sir. 24:15, where the blend associates Wisdom with the Tabernacle,

but again lacks the phrase “purely salted/blended.”

This unique phrase, “purely salted,” indicates in each of its usages in the Songs,

particularly Songs 11, 12, and 13, what is most holy in the presence of the most holy:

something mentioned only in the context of the Tabernacle in Exodus set just inside the

35
Strugnell, “Angelic Liturgy,” 331 n. 17; Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 295, 298.
36
See the discussion in Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 297-8.
 229

veil (Song 10-11) before throne/ark of the testimony (Song 12) by the high priest (Song

13). It permeates as the liturgies move through the veil into the inner chamber.

Songs 10-11, however, are not the first combinations of mobile Tabernacle and

stationary temple imagery. 2 Chronicles similarly combines the physical stationary

structure of Solomon’s temple with the Tabernacle’s imagery, placing the Tabernacle’s

veil within the temple (2 Chron. 3:14), yet having carved cherubim along the walls (2

Chron. 3:7). The Songs continue in this combinatory path set by the Chronicler.

Like nearly everything else in the Songs, the singular veil has a plural counterpart

(‫)פרכות‬, having multiple veils for the multiple inner chambers (‫)פרכות דבירי הפלא‬, which

mirror the singular “veil of the inner chamber of the king” (‫)בפרוכת דביר המלך‬,

presumably the same singular “inner chamber” that mirrors the “Tabernacle.” These

multiple veils of many inner chambers all point to multiple thrones and multiple chariots

in the next Song (Song 11; 11Q17 vii:1-2), all of which ultimately culminate in the

singular throne-chariot in the singular heavenly Tabernacle in Song 12.

There is the further indication in Song 10 of the two sides of the “veil” and

“veils.” Nothing in Exodus and 2 Chronicles indicates that the cherubim were on both

sides of the veil. Baumgarten has suggested that the language of “both sides” derives

from Exod. 32:15, where the tablets are described as being inscribed on both sides. He

also points to the Babylonian Talmud, which indicates that the veil was two-sided

(b.Yoma 72b).37 This later text distinguishes between the “skillful workmanship” (‫)חשב‬

and the “skillful needlework” )‫ (רקם‬noting that for the veil the terminology is solely

woven “workmanship.” Embroidery shows an image on one side, but woven cloth would

37
Baumgarten, “Qumran Sabbath Shirot,” 202; cf. Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 161 n. 26.
 230

show the image on both sides; therefore, the woven veil has “two different figures” seen

from each side. The Songs do not make such a distinction, but it is possible that they rely

upon a similar idea of figures being on both sides of the cloth.

The “inside” or “behind the […] of the inner chamber” (‫ )מביתה ליק ה הדביר‬also

relies upon the placement of the veil. The Tabernacle’s veil, indeed, “shall separate for

you the holy place from the most holy” (Exod. 26:34); it is a demarcation of different

grades of holy space—what lies before it is holy; what lies behind, most holy. The

identification with the veil and the inner sanctuary was strong enough for Sirach and the

Damascus Document to call the inner chamber “the house of the veil” (Sir. 50:5; 4Q266

5ii:7). It demarcates sacred time and sacred personality, since the high priest may only

enter the veil once a year, on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:2; cf. 4Q375 1ii:7). As

such, it is appropriate to bring it up in the Songs just before one enters the inner shrine of

the Tabernacle with the “structure of the throne-chariot” in Song 12, demarcating the

space and time preceding the climactic Song, coming just before the two Songs

surrounding Shavuot (Songs 11 and 12) and the final sacrifice (Song 13).38

The phrase ‫“ מבית לפרכת‬behind/inside the veil” occurs throughout the Priestly

sources, used mostly in Exodus 26 and Leviticus 16. It is, again, the division between

holy and most holy; the things “within” or “inside” are most holy: the ark of the

testimony is within (Exod. 26:31); the time when the high priest may and may not come

within the veil on the Day of Atonement, when he brings special incense and blood

within (Lev. 16:2, 12, 15; cf. Num. 18:7; Sir. 50:5 (Heb.)). Ultimately, while the

38
Cf. HypArch (NHC II, 4), 94:9-10; 95:21-22), where the veil separates the material world and the seven
lower heavens from the highest heavens. Cf. Hekhalot Zutarti when R. Akiva reaches the curtain (‫)פרגוד‬
after passing the “entrances of the firmament” (§§ 346, 673). See Davila, Liturgical Works, 140.
 231

untranslated word cannot be “veil” to recreate the “behind the […] of the inner chamber,”

it is likely that whatever the term, it refers to an aspect of the veil behind which one

reaches the most holy place only during the most holy time, whether the day of

atonement (Leviticus 16) or Shavuot (Songs 11 and 12). As the ark, God’s throne lies

“behind the veil” in the Priestly documents, so will the throne-chariot appear beyond the

veil as the liturgists progress through the Songs; just as the high priest goes behind the

veil in the presence of the ark/throne on Day of Atonement, so does the liturgist remain

with the veil on Song 10, finally moving beyond it on the Shavuot (Songs 11 and 12).

Song 10 continues the reconfigurations of the priestly Tabernacle, using a term

that is unique to the priestly tradition and makes the most sense in a Tabernacle context:

“veil” (‫)פרוכת‬. The veil separates the holy from the most holy, the regular priesthood

from the high priesthood; it is the boundary of most sacred space and time. Only on the

most sacred occasions may one pass through: the Day of Atonement in the Priestly

Source (Leviticus 16) and the Sabbaths surrounding Shavuot in the Songs (Songs 11-12).

The veil/s of the inner chamber/s conduct the participants into the realm of living celestial

architecture, and into the presence of the throne-chariot itself within the heavenly holy of

holies, which is the Tabernacle (Song 12), and to the final act of sacrifice (Song 13).

Once “behind the veil,” one beholds the great throne, whether the ark of the testimony

(Exod. 26) or throne chariot (Song 12). The veil vision of Song 10 is a threshold moment

one passes into a much more heightened sacredness of space and time.
 232

Song 12: The Tabernacle and the Tavnit of the Throne-Chariot

Whereas in Song 7, the “structure” framed the firmament, the holy of holies, the

inner chamber, and the Tabernacle, equating these elements, in Song 12 the Tabernacle

frames a reenactment of Ezekiel 1, culminating in the vision of the “‫ תבנית‬of the throne-

chariot,” again creatively combining the language and imagery from Exodus and

Ezekiel.39 This framing mirrors Exodus: it is fitting for a series of Songs that recall

Moses’ seventh-day vision of the “‫ תבנית‬of the Tabernacle,” which also frames the

revelation of the ark/throne from which God reveals himself and speaks to Moses (Exod.

25:10-22), to place the most spectacular throne vision from Ezekiel 1 in the context of

Tabernacle language. In Exodus the ark/throne is the very first aspect of the “pattern” of

Tabernacle to be revealed. In Song 7, there were already allusions to Ezekiel 1 in terms

of glowing coals of fire darting to and fro, “appearances,” and ophannim, with possible

allusions to God’s throne, or ark, from Exod. 25:18-22 with the use of cherubim. Song

12 makes these allusions explicit in a vision that coincides with Shavuot:

For the Sa[ge. The song of the sacrifice (‫ ])עולת‬of the twelfth Sabbath on the
twenty-first of the third month.

Praise the God of wond[rous years (?)]

and exalt him according to the glory in the Tabernacle
[of the God/s of] knowledge ([‫)]הכבוד במשכ[ן אלוהי] דעת‬.

The [cheru]bim fall before him and they b[le]ss.

When they raise themselves,
a quiet voice of God (‫[ )קול דממת אלוהים‬is heard]
and tumult of chanting;
at the rising of their wings,
a voice of q[uiet] of God (‫)קול[ דממ]ת אלוהים‬.

They are blessing a structure of a throne-chariot (‫תבנית) כסא מרכבה מברכים‬

39
For a discussion of the symbolism of the throne, see Barker, Gate of Heaven, 133-177.
 233

above the firmament of the cherubim (‫)ממעל לרקיע הכרובים‬.

[And] they chant the [the splend]or of the firmament of light
from beneath his glorious seat (‫)מושב כבודו‬.

And when the ophannim go,

the angels of holiness return.
They go out from between his wheels of glory.

Like the appearance of fire are most holy spirits.

Surrounding is an appearance of streams of fire
in a likeness of hashmal, and workmanship of brightness (‫)ומעשי [נ]וגה‬
with multicolored glory, wondrously dyed, purely salted.
(‫)ברוקמת כבוד צבעי פלא ממולח טוה‬

Spirits of living gods constantly go about

with the glory of the wondrous chariots.
And a quiet voice of blessing is with the tumult of their going,
and they praise with holiness in the returning of their ways.
When they raise themselves they exalt wondrously.
And when they settle they stand.
A voice of joyous chanting grows silent
and the quiet of a blessing of God is in all the camps of the gods
And a voice of praises …. from beneath the[ir] divisions on [their] sides…
and all their mustered troops chant, each in his station.
(4Q405 20 ii-21-22:6-14 + 11QShirShabb 3-4)

As noted, this Sabbath song would have been sung the week after Shavu‘ot

according to the sectarian calendar. This holiday’s influence can be seen in the increased

references to Psalm 68, with the mention of multiple chariots (‫ )מרכבות‬and the strong

resonances with Ezekiel 1. This combination of God’s throne and multiple chariots also

occurs in the Berakhot (4Q286 lii:1-2): “Your worthy seat and the footstools of your

glorious feet in the heights of your station and the floor of your holiness and the chariots

of your glory, their cherubim and ophannim, and all their foundations.” The fragment

continues with the wondrous description of the heavenly sanctuary in terms similar to the

Songs, appropriate for the celebration of God’s theophany on Sinai combined with

Ezekiel. As such, the Songs, in Song 11, which contains multiple chariots, and Song 12’s
 234

depiction of the great throne-chariot from Ezekiel 1, bear many similarities with the

Berakhot liturgies, which would have been performed between Songs 11 and 12.

As my layout suggests, this passage is poetic with extensive parallelism and

balanced phrasing. The Tabernacle and its glory frame the passage. This recalls Exodus

25:9, in which the “pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture” frames

the entire discussion, and the description of the ark of the testimony immediately follows

(Exod. 25:10-22). Just after speaking of showing the pattern of the Tabernacle, the first

thing God reveals to Moses is the future seat of revelation: God’s presence between the

cherubim on the mercy seat, God’s throne. Likewise, in Song 12 the glory in the

Tabernacle of the God of knowledge heads the discussion God’s throne with cherubim.

Yet the Songs have substituted imagery from the most spectacular throne vision in the

Hebrew Bible (Ezekiel 1) and placed it in the Mosaic framework pattern from Exodus 25.

In this context, the mention of cherubim is important: they are absent in Ezekiel’s initial

vision—Ezekiel’s “living ones” become cherubim in Ezek. 10:15—yet prevalent in

Exodus, appearing seven times in five verses concerning the ark/throne (Exod. 25:18-22).

Whereas Song 7 had a “glorious ‫ ”תבנית‬or “glorious structure,” Song 12 has

“glory in the Tabernacle.” The term differs: it is substantive, and, a rarity in the Songs, it

has a definite article. It is the glory in the Tabernacle. “Glory” ‫ כבוד‬or “his glory” ‫כבודו‬

appear frequently in the Songs. “Glory” is an important term in ancient Jewish and

Christian literature, designating the “glory of the LORD,” which can appear as a separate

being. It appears at times almost as an equivalent term for the Tetragrammaton, usually

in terms of theophany—the “glory of the LORD” is visible radiance that appears to the
 235

visionary.40 Most clearly and pertinently for Song 12, it appears in both Ezekiel’s throne

vision and Moses’ Tabernacle vision. Ezekiel says, “Such was the appearance of the

likeness of the glory (‫ )כבוד‬of the LORD” (Ezek. 1:28; cf. Exod. 24:17). The “glory”

becomes a distinct figure in Ezekiel to avoid direct anthropomorphizing of God,

something also accomplished by the distancing language of “appearance” and “likeness,”

making the vision several times removed from the invisible reality of YHWH.41 Yet the

unqualified use of “the Glory” is rare. Other throne visions also pick up on this language:

Enoch sees the “Great Glory” on the throne (1 Enoch 14:20; cf. 102:3), and Levi sees the

“Great Glory” in the heavenly holy of holies (TLevi 3.4; cf. Asc. Isa. 9:37). The definite

sense of “the glory” does not appear elsewhere in Qumran literature.42 This unqualified

usage indicates a trajectory towards a semi-independent existence for the glory.

Next is the positioning of “the glory in the Tabernacle.” This literal rendering

highlights the relationship between “the glory” and “the Tabernacle.” The glory is an

important element for the Tabernacle and temple. When Moses first ascends the

mountain to have a vision of the Tabernacle, “the glory of the LORD settled on Mount

Sinai” (Exod. 24:16), and “the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like a devouring

fire” (Exod. 24:17). This “appearance of the glory of the LORD” is very close to and

likely relies upon Ezekiel’s “appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD” (Ezek.

1:29). When the Tabernacle is constructed, the glory dwells in it: “Then the cloud

40
E.g., Exod. 16:7; 24:17; 33:18-23; Lev. 9:6, 23; Num. 14:10; 16:19, 42; 20:6; Is. 35:2; 40:5; 60:1-3;
Ezek. 1:28; 3:23; 10:4; 11:23; 43:4-5; 44:4; cf. Is. 26:10.
41
Following the notion that one cannot see God and live (Exodus 33:20), the “glory” provides a means of
vision that both reveals and conceals the high god, YHWH. The ‫ כבוד‬in Ezekiel is a humanlike figure that
represents God. Following suit, the Greek δόξα becomes associated with Jesus/Logos (John 1:14).
42
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 312.
 236

covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the Tabernacle. And

Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting, because the cloud abode upon it, and the

glory of the LORD filled the Tabernacle” (Exod. 40:34-35). Similarly, the glory of the

LORD fills the “house of the LORD” (1 Kings 8:10-11; cf. 2 Chron. 5:13-14; 2 Chron.

7:1; Ezek. 43:4-5; 44:4). Throughout temple and Tabernacle literature, the glory of the

LORD fills the sanctuary directly after it is constructed. The terminology of glory and

Tabernacle are further associated in an ongoing sense in Ps. 26:8: “LORD, I love the

habitation of your house / and the place of the dwelling (Tabernacle) of your glory ( ‫משכן‬

‫)כבודך‬.” Instead of a “Tabernacle of your glory,” Song 12 has “the glory in the

Tabernacle.” The Song’s placement of the glory in the Tabernacle, therefore, mirrors the

filling of the Tabernacle by the glory of the LORD in Exod. 40:34-5 and parallel temple

literature, drawing upon an ongoing association between glory and sanctuary.

Finally, the glory-filled Tabernacle may be the Tabernacle “[of the God/s of]

knowledge,” although the lacuna between “Tabernacle” and “knowledge” is uncertain.

The reconstruction is Newsom’s.43 “Knowledge” (‫ )דעת‬is a prevalent term in the Songs,

occurring in numerous contexts,44 but Newsom’s reconstruction of “of the God/s of” is

likely given the turn of phrase of “gods of knowledge” in Songs 2 (4Q400 2), 7 (4Q403

li:31, 38), elsewhere in Song 12 (4Q405 23i:8), and the “god of knowledge” in Song 13

(4Q405 23ii:12).45 If so, this phrase would again align Songs 7, 12, 13, which already

have multiple ties, not least of which is the occurrence of .‫תבנית‬

43
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 303.
44
See Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 404-6; Wolfson, “Seven Mysteries of Knowledge.”
45
Cf. the use of this term in 1QS 3-4.
 237

As the glory is within the heavenly Tabernacle, the Tabernacle sets the stage for

the subsequent throne imagery. The prostration and praise of the cherubim, the tumult

and silence, and the subsequent interlacing of chanting, movement, and the vision of the

glory and the throne-chariot, all are framed as occurring within the Tabernacle. The

glory, with its resonances in both throne visions and filling sanctuaries, provides a

literary and conceptual overlap between Exodus and Ezekiel, reinforced with the

placement of cherubim and the language of ‫ תבנית‬within the throne vision itself.

The subsequent vision of the “structure of the throne-chariot” draws upon Ezekiel

1, although it uses a different ordering.46 The first section handles the cherubim and their

movements, substituting the cherubim for Ezekiel’s “living creatures,” which carry the

throne-chariot. This equation had occurred in Ezekiel (Ezek. 10:15-22), yet the

substitution of Cherubim also relies upon the view that the cherubim formed the throne

itself (1 Kings 6:23-28; Exod. 25:17-22; cf. 1 En. 14:18; Sir. 49:8).

The section relies upon a balanced parallelism between the Cherubim raising

themselves and the rising of wings followed by the quiet voice of God, which is

juxtaposed paradoxically the first time with tumult, a combination repeated toward the

end of the entire passage. The tumult refers to the sound made by the wings of the living

ones/cherubim when they move: “When they moved, I heard the sound of their wings,

like the sound of many waters, like the thunder of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like

the sound of an army; when they stopped, they let down their wings” (Ezek. 1:24). The

reverse movement of settling and standing at the end of the passage reflects Ezek. 1:25.

46
See the parallel columns of the two texts in Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 55-6.
 238

While the tumult made from the wings derives from Ezekiel, Song 12 also speaks

of silence (cf. Song 11; 4Q405 18:5).47 The quietness and stillness are juxtaposed with

praise, exaltation, and tumult: “A quiet voice of God is heard and tumult of chanting; at

the rising of their wings, a quiet voice of God.” While biblical sources do not confirm

nor disconfirm this claim, according to the Letter of Aristeas 95 the temple cult in

Jerusalem was completely silent.48 The silent yearly theophany—the Day of

Atonement—contrasts others, particularly the Sinai theophany, where the LORD appears

in a storm and fire with thunder, much like the tumult in Ezekiel and this passage.49

Other possible references to silence include Hab. 2:20 and Zech. 2:17, where all are silent

before the LORD in his temple or dwelling. But this does not explain God’s own

silence.50 The only explicitly silent theophany is Elijah’s in 1 Kings 19:11-13:

Now there was a great wind, so strong that it was splitting mountains and
breaking rocks in pieces before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind;
47
See Allison, “The Silence of Angels,” 189-97, who focuses on the ability of one to properly praise God
and cites several texts in which the appropriate response to God is silence (Isaiah 41:1; Habakkuk 2:20;
Zechariah 2:13; Revelation 8:1; b. Berakhot 58a; Exodus Rabbah, Yitro 29:9), which does not at all explain
God’s own silence as found in this passage. On the other hand, the tradition of angels singing and praising
in silent songs is rather interesting for the Songs as found in Sefer Ha-Razim, and in later texts where 1
Kings 19:12 is reinterpreted as the silent sound of celestial songs (Hekhalot Rabbati 28.2; Targum Jonathan
to 1 Kings 19:12 ). Cf. also 2 Enoch 21:1 and Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth. This might be
appropriate if the phrase, ‫קול דממת אלוהים‬, refers to “angels” or a plurality of “gods” instead of “god,” as it
often does in the Songs, as argued by Schiffman, “Merkavah Speculation at Qumran, “ 36-7.
48
See also the discussion Smith, To Take Place, 166, n. 52.
49
In the Hebrew Bible and subsequent Jewish and Christian traditions, thunder often accompanies a
theophany, underscoring God’s power; it is the “thunder of the almighty” (Ex. 20:16; Ezek. 1:24; cf. Job
26:14). Thunder also characterizes a divine, angelic, or heavenly voice (see, e.g., Ps. 18:13; Jn 12:28-29;
Rev. 6:1). In Greek traditions, Zeus is the “Thunderer” and is usually portrayed as holding a thunder bolt.
Finally, thunder was a meteorological omen in antiquity. The study of thunder in the skies began in
Mesopotamia, as can be found in the Enuma Anu Enlil, tablet 44. A brontologion, or a “thunder-chart,”
was found at Qumran (4Q318), which predicts events based upon thunder in a particular zodiacal house.
This particular text is the oldest evidence for this practice west of Mesopotamia in the Hellenistic and early
Roman periods. Other texts can be found in Greek in the Byzantine period (see J.C. Greenfield and M.
Sokoloff, "An Astrological Text from Qumran (4Q318) and Reflections on Some Zodiacal Names," RevQ
16 (1995): 507-525).
50
See Morray-Jones, “Temple Within,” 163-4.
 239

and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and
after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a
sound of sheer silence (‫)קול דממה דקה‬. When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face
in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. (RSV)

The ‫ קול דממה דקה‬closely resembles the line under discussion of ‫קול דממת אלוהים‬, both

beginning with “sound/voice of quiet/silence.” 1 Kings intensifies the “silence”

thereafter, whereas Song 12 adds that this “silent sound” is “of God (‫)אלוהים‬.” Schiffman

thinks the Songs directly refer to 1 Kings.51 It is fitting in the eclectic nature of the Songs

in general to combine elements from many theophanic events (Exodus 25, Ezekiel 1, 1

Kings 19, and traditions of the silent ‫)דביר‬, with Ezekiel dominating but framed by

Exodus. This synthesis of all theophanies indicates that the participants understood all of

these figures as experiencing the same divine, heavenly reality.52

The passage transitions from the movements of the cherubim to their blessing and

upholding the throne-chariot “above the firmament of the cherubim.” This is a well-

wrought section. The blessing of the "structure of the throne-chariot" parallels chanting

the firmament of light, placed seemingly in opposed positions “above” and “from

beneath.” Above cherubim and below the glorious seat, however, is the same space, i.e.,

the “firmament.” Overlaying this parallelism is a chiasm. The throne-chariot in the first

line mirrors the glorious seat in the fourth line, and the “firmament of the cherubim” in

the second line mirrors the “firmament of light” in the third line. This section even

51
Schiffman, “Merkavah Speculation at Qumran,” 36-7, cites material from late antique Jewish circles in
his discussion (on the paradoxical silent praise of angels, he cites Midrash Konen; Ma‘aseh Merkavah 33;
Hekhalot Rabbati, which also portrays God as sitting in the “chamber of silence”). This paradoxical
juxtaposition of silent speech operative in the silence of the Holy of Holies and the Elijah theophany had
wider currency in the ancient world regarding the modes of praise in the heavenly realm(s). One can also
find this juxtaposition of silence, speech, and praise in late antique Egypt in the Hermetic text, The
Discourse on the Eighth and the Ninth (56:8-12; 58:16-27), where the adept sings songs in silence.
52
Alexander, Mystical Texts, 59.
 240

has wordplay, where ‫ מברכים‬is delayed in the first line to mirror ‫ הכרובים‬in this next line,

using, for the Songs, a rare participle and an equally rare definite article to create the

same rhythm in words that are the inverse roots of one another: ‫ כרב‬is the reverse of ‫ברך‬.

Rhythmic language coincides with the crucial moment of seeing a climactic

vision of the “structure of the throne chariot.” The description of the heavenly beings in

alternating tumult and silence surrounding the throne-chariot and the stylistic elements of

parallelism, chiasm, and rhythm coincide to evoke and envision the heavenly liturgy in

the most sacred place in the heavens, directly engaging that heavenly reality with

language appropriately beautiful for such a setting.

The location of the throne-chariot above the “firmament of the cherubim” relies

upon Ezek. 1:22: “Over the heads of the living creatures there was something like a

dome (‫)רקיע‬,” and later, “above the over their heads there was something like a throne

(‫( ”)דמות כסא‬Ezek. 1:26). The peculiar phrasing of “a structure of throne-chariot” ( ‫תבנית‬

‫ )כסא מרכבה‬also takes its cue from this verse, literally, “a likeness of a throne,” while

replacing “likeness” (‫ )דמות‬with “structure” (‫)תבנית‬. This shift is significant. In fact, the

Songs use the word ‫ דמות‬frequently to distance the vision from being a direct one of God.

One could compare, in this respect, the end of Ezekiel’s description: “This was the

appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD” ‫ מראה דמות כבוד (יהוה‬.)‫ הוא‬All of

these terms, “appearance,” “likeness,” and “glory,” regularly appear throughout the

Songs, and so the substitution of ‫ תבנית‬is conspicuous. The terminological substitution of

“structure” in the context of Ezekiel’s vision of the “throne chariot” in a broader setting

of the “glory in the Tabernacle,” effectively combines the imagery of Exodus 25 and

Ezekiel 1 into a single heavenly vision, making Exodus 25 the framework for Ezekiel 1,
 241

while allowing some terminology from Exodus 25 to bleed into the visionary exegesis of

Ezekiel 1. As such, the reinterpretation of the terminology from Song 7 is also in play,

moving from “pattern” from Exodus and “likeness” from Ezekiel to “structure.” In this

way, the word ‫ תבנית‬opposes Ezekiel’s usage of ‫דמות‬, because it emphasizes that what one

sees is the thing itself, rather than an “image” of it.

Finally, there is one tradition, dependent both upon Exodus 25 and Ezekiel 1,

which brings together the tavnit, the throne/chariot/ark, and the sanctuary: “also for his

plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of

the covenant of the LORD” (1 Chron. 28:18). Here the Ark of the Covenant is equated

with the “chariot of the cherubim,” combining Ezekiel with Exodus. What is more, it is

the “plan (‫ )תבנית‬of the golden chariot of the cherubim.” Thus, there is a text within the

tradition of both Exodus and Ezekiel that combines their two visions to create a “tavnit”

of the chariot, reconfiguring them as instructions that David gave to Solomon, yet in

Song 12 recast not as plans or a pattern, but as its very structure.53

The word tavnit reappears, however, in Song 12 in a different way, and one which

may resemble Ezekiel’s usage of “likeness” or “appearance,” but again in the context of

the highest heavenly sanctuary, framed as the Tabernacle, suggesting that this Tabernacle

language may intrude into Ezekiel’s form of construct chains. In one fragment, ones

finds, “every ‫ תבנית‬of spirits of wonder” (11Q17 viii:3). While one possibility is that this

means that the structure is of spiritual substance, it can mean, as discussed with the

“structure of gods,” that the “spirits of wonder” themselves are structural as the celestial

architecture, and the ophannim and cherubim who constitute the throne-chariot are.

53
See Davila, “Macrocosmic Temple,” 11.
 242

Finally, Ezekiel’s vision does not use the word “chariot,” but the inclusion of

wheels, the “ophannim,” in the vision of the mobile throne gives the imagery of a chariot.

As noted, 1 En. 14:18 and Dan. 7:9, in the wake of Ezekiel, place wheels on the throne.

Sir. 49:8 calls Ezekiel’s vision “of the glory which God showed him above the chariot of

the cherubim” (cf. Second Ezekiel 4Q385 4:6).54 Although Ezekiel never uses the word

“chariot” for the heavenly conveyance, subsequent reflection had explicated what was

left implicit. Song 12 clearly invokes Ezekiel’s throne or chariot in this passage. In fact,

while the Songs frequently speak of ‫מרכבות‬, or “chariots,” this is the only place that

places the word throne (‫ )כסא‬in front of it, distinguishing it from the plethora of other

“chariots.” This combination simultaneously distinguishes this throne from the various

other thrones mentioned throughout. One other passage, Song 11 (11Q17 vii:1),

mentions the “height of the throne,” but that is probably a preliminary glimpse of this

same throne as one just passed through veil from Song 10 in Song 11.

The next section returns to the "movement" language found earlier, with going,

returning, and going out. The parallelism is not only between verbs of going, but between

ophannim and wheels, both designations of the "wheels" of the throne-chariot. The

ophannim are heavenly beings that are part of the chariot: they are its “wheels,” or, in the

Song, “his wheels of glory.” This invokes Ezek. 1:15-21:

Now as I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel upon the earth beside the
living creatures, one for each of the four of them. As for the appearance of the
wheels [‫ ]אופנים‬and their construction [‫]מעשיהם‬: their appearance was like the
gleaming of chrysolite; and the four had the same likeness, their construction
being as it were a wheel within a wheel…. And when the living creatures went,
the wheels went beside them; and when the living creatures rose from the earth,
the wheels rose…for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.

54
In later documents, a throne-chariot is mentioned in 3 Enoch 46:2; Hyp.Arch. NHC II, 4 95:19-30; Orig.
World NHC II, 5 104:31-105:12. See Davila, Liturgical Works, 151.
 243

The relationship between the ophannim and the “angels of holiness” might by relying

upon Ezek. 1:21 (cf. Ezek. 10:9-19).

After this, the phrase, “like the appearance of fire are most holy spirits all

around,” refers to Ezek. 1:13-14: “In the middle of the living creatures there was

something that looked like burning coals of fire, like torches moving to and fro among

the living creatures; the fire was bright, and lightning issues from the fire. The living

creatures darted to and fro, like a flash of lightning.” Song 7 already introduced the

appearance of fiery coals darting to and fro. If this were not enough, Song 12 uses the

word ‫חשמל‬, which only appears in Ezekiel’s vision in the Hebrew Bible (Ezek. 1:27).

In parallelism with the ‫ חשמל‬is the “workmanship of brightness with colorful

glory, wondrously dyed, purely salted (‫)ומעשי׀ [נ]וגה ברוקמת כבוד צבעי פלא ממולח טוה‬.”

This last line reintroduces Tabernacle language in Ezekiel’s vision. As noted, the root

‫ רקם‬is most typical of the priestly author in the Pentateuch to discuss the priestly

garments and the Tabernacle fabrics (Exod. 26:1, 31, 36; Exod. 27:16; 28:39; 36:35;

38:23). It occurs in Songs 5, 7, 9, 10 and will recur in Song 13 in the context of the high

priestly garments. Here it refers to the skillful combination of the three colors through

woven workmanship. It has the same connotation elsewhere in the scrolls (1QM vii

11).55 The only combination of ‫ רקם‬and “dyed” (‫ )צבע‬occurs in the Song of Deborah

(Judges 5:30). Yet, given the temple context, the “dyed” and “glorious colors” indicate a

priestly context of the Tabernacle hangings, also suggested by the unique phrase, “purely

55
Newsom (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 317) notes that the word “pure” should be ‫ טוהר‬rather than ‫טוה‬,
explaining that the resh has been lost before the haplography of the following word ‫רוחות‬.
 244

salted” (Exod. 30:35).56 As noted, this phrase appropriately occurs in three consecutive

Songs regarding the inner chamber (Songs 11, 12, and 13; 4Q405 19 4; 4Q405 22 11;

4Q405 23 ii 10 and 11QShirShabb 8-7 5) after passing the veil in Song 10, since its only

occurrence in the Hebrew Bible regards the special incense placed by the high priest just

before the ark/throne in the Tabernacle’s most holy place (Exod. 30:34-6); it is the scent

of the most holy place.57 Just as “structure” replaced Ezekiel’s “likeness,” the

“multicolored,” “dyed,” and “purely salted” Tabernacle fabrics replace the rainbow from

Ezek. 1:28, in the ongoing synthesis of Moses’ vision of the Tabernacle and Ezekiel’s

vision of the throne-chariot into a single heavenly reality.58

While Song 12 mostly relies upon Ezekiel 1, its visionary exegesis has proved

rich in allusion. It uses the Tabernacle as the holy of holies to frame an Ezekiel-like

throne vision, itself refracted through concurrent and later exegetical associations of the

cherubim with the throne (Exodus 25), the “living ones” with cherubim (Ezekiel 10, 1

Enoch 14, Sirach 9), and the throne as a chariot (1 Chron. 28:18; Sir. 49:8; Second

Ezekiel 4Q385 4:6), substituting the Tabernacle’s tavnit for Ezekiel’s “likeness” already

refracted through the combination of Priestly language, Ezekiel, and Solomon’s temple in

1 Chronicles 28. The colorful workmanship mixed with “purely salted” scent replaces

the bow, and recalls the cultic aspects of the Tabernacle with the ark/throne within from

Exodus 30. As the ‫ תבנית‬from Exodus substitutes for Ezekiel’s “likeness,” the entire

Ezekiel theophany stands in for Exodus’ ark of the testimony, blending the two

56
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 317.
57
See the discussion in Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 297-8.
58
Christopher Rowland, "The Visions of God in Apocalyptic Literature," JSJ 10 (1979): 143 n. 14;
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 316-7.
 245

theophanies alongside the paradoxical silent tumult of 1 Kings 19. The Song aligns what

Moses, Elijah, and Ezekiel experienced into a single heavenly reality. Although there is

the “glory in the Tabernacle” that reflects the infilling of God’s glory in numerous

sanctuary consecration ceremonies, the one thing missing from this vision is the

anthropomorphic glory upon the throne itself.

Song 13: The Heavenly Sacrifice and the Heavenly High Priestly Vestments

In a liturgical series called the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, it is strange that

there is only one song in which a sacrifice takes place: Song 13.59 Sacrifices in the

heavenly realm are occasionally attested in ancient literature.60 Such cultic language of

sacrifice necessarily touches upon the priestly legislation of Exodus and Leviticus. In

addition, Song 13 participates in a substantial ancient fascination with the priestly

vestments. This interest takes its cue from Exodus 28 and 38. To invoke the high

priestly breastplate and ephod, the language of ‫ תבנית‬reemerges to refer to the “wonder

and the structure of the breastpieces,” reinforcing the governing language of Moses’

Tabernacle vision, of which the description of the priestly and high priestly vestments

were a part (Exodus 25-31, 35-40). From this context, the Song again picks up on the

other priestly descriptors: “multicolored,” “scarlet,” “dyed garments,” “woven

workmanship,” and “purely salted.” Finally, the anthropomorphic glory that one would

have expected in Song 12 in its recollection of Ezekiel is merely delayed until Song 13:

59
Song 6 (4Q403 li:22 = 4Q405 3ii) may refer to the Tamid offering. The difficulty is that the word may
mean “continually” or the “tamid-offering,” the daily burnt offering. If the latter, the angels praise God
with the “seven wondrous words” as the tamid offering. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 202-3.
60
Rev. 8:3-4; 3 Baruch 14; Life of Adam and Eve 33.4-5; TLevi 3.5-6; b.Hag. 12b; Hekhalot Rabbati §168,
198; cf. Jub. 6:18-22.
 246

the high priestly vestments become “the likeness of the spirit of glory” finally mirroring

“the appearance of the likeness of the glory” (Ezek. 1:28). When one sees the heavenly

priestly vestments, one sees the radiant Glory.

Sacrifice in the Heavenly Holy of Holies

Song 13 has been reconstructed from three fragments: 11Q17 ix (11Q17 8-7),

4Q405 23ii, and 11Q17x. The sacrifices and vestments appear in the first two. Sacrifice

occurs in 11Q17 ix:

[…] . favor (‫ )רצון‬.. […] . for sacrifices of the holy ones (‫]…[)לזבחי קדושים‬. The
odor of their offerings (‫]…[ … )ריח מנחותם‬.. and the o[do]r of their libations ( ‫וריח‬
‫ )נסכיהם‬according to the num[ber of …] of purity with a spirit of holi[ness] […]
eternal […] with [effulgence and] adornment..[…]. wonder and the structure of
the breastpieces of (‫ …[ )פלא ותבנית חשני‬c]ords of ornamentation (‫]…[ )תפארת‬
colorful (‫ ]…[ )רוקמה‬like [woven] wo[rkmanship…] purely salted, dyed things of
(‫[< ]…[ )ממלח טוהר צבעי‬eff]ulgence> [and] adornment .[…]…[…].. for forms
[…]..ephod (‫]…[ )אפוד‬angels[…]…

Sacrificial language appears in “sacrifices of the holy ones” (‫)לזבחי קדושים‬, “the odor of

their offerings” (‫)ריח מנחותם‬, and “the odor of their libations” ( ‫)נסכיהםוריח‬. Heavenly

sacrifice is rare.61 While some explain this rarity by saying that those who produced

heavenly sanctuary literature were cut off from earthly temple service, it is not clear this

was always the case. It is also not clear that being cut off would decrease rather than

increase references to heavenly sacrifice.62 Another explanation is that the altar stands

61
See Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 372; Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 33-37; Gray
(Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 148-78) also provides a lengthier and helpful discussion, even though he
had fewer sources at his disposal.
62
Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 36.
 247

outside the sanctuary (Exod. 40:29).63 A depiction of the heavenly holy of holies,

therefore, would lack sacrificial imagery.64 Yet there is an incense altar within the

sanctuary, and the “purely salted” incense before the ark and mercy-seat (Exod. 30:34-8);

thus, heavenly sacrifices fittingly tend toward olfactory language.65

Jubilees mentions that Shavuot was first celebrated in heaven until Noah (Jub.

6:18), when it was given to humans; it, too, must be celebrated with sacrifices (Jub. 6:22),

hinting that the angels had sacrificed on Shavuot.66 Among apocalypses, the only ones to

mention heavenly offerings are 3 Baruch, Revelation, the Greek Life of Adam and Eve,

and the long version of Testament of Levi. In Revelation, an angel stands at the golden

altar before the throne with a golden censer, mingling the prayers of the saints with

incense, both rising together before God (Rev. 8:3-4). Likewise, in 3 Baruch, Michael

offers up the “virtues” or good deeds of humans to God (3 Baruch 14). In the Life of

Adam and Eve 33.4-5, angels offer incense with frankincense to God to ask for God’s

forgiveness of Adam’s transgression. While the angels brought these implements to earth

to worship on earth, it presumably reflected their heavenly activities.67

The only other text to suggest a heavenly sacrifice is the Testament of Levi in its

longer recension. Sacrifices are “a pleasing odor, a rational and bloodless oblation” (3.5-

63
Perhaps this is why the potential reference to the “tamid” occurs in Song 6 (4Q403 li:22 = 4Q405 3ii:22)
before one moves through the nave, past the veil, and into the heavenly inner sanctum; see Schiffman,
“Merkavah Speculation,” 30-31.
64
Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 132-3.
65
On the importance of incense in the earthly/heavenly cult correspondence, see Martha Himmelfarb,
"Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense: The Law of the Priesthood in Aramaic Levi and Jubilees,"
Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions, ed. Ra'anan Boustan and Annette
Yoshiko Reed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 103-122.
66
See Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 158-9.
67
Cf. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 359.
 248

6). Like Revelation and 3 Baruch, the non-corporeal aspect of sacrifice is emphasized—

it is bloodless, it is a “pleasing odor.” Drawing upon the ubiquitous language of the

priestly cultic legislation, a “pleasing odor,” and emphasizing the aroma rather than the

corporeal aspects of sacrifice makes the aroma in heaven the actual sacrifice.68 In every

text concerning the heavenly cult, sacrifices remain a generic “offering,” are equated with

scent or incense, or are the prayers or good deeds of the righteous.

This makes Song 13 both familiar and jolting. While one might expect ‫עולה‬,

“whole burnt offering,” since that is the terminology that appears at the head of each

Sabbath Song,69 the Song uses ‫זבח‬, literally “slaughter,” for “sacrifice,” a surprising term

in a heavenly setting where a more generic “offering” and a tendency to reduce reminders

of the corporeal aspect of sacrifice would be expected. In fact, the only other text I am

aware of in antiquity that places a bloody sacrifice in heaven is Hebrews, when Jesus

offers his own blood in the heavenly holy of holies (9:11-14).70

Considering all three sacrificial offerings mentioned in the Song, Newsom draws

attention to Lev. 23:37, which lists the various burnt offerings as ‫עלה ומנחה זבח ונסכים‬

(“burnt offerings and cereal offerings, sacrifices and drink offerings”) in the chapter of

Sabbath observance, new moons, and appointed feasts. The last three out of four of these

terms appear in this fragment, making it possible that the first, the one used at the heading

of each Sabbath, has been lost in the lacunae that riddle this fragment. A similar

68
Later, B. Hag. 12b also refers to Michael giving a generic offering in “Zebul,” the fourth of seven
heavens. Finally, according to Hekhalot Rabbati §168 the prayers of Israel ascend to God as a pleasing
aroma and that a “scent of splendor” rises in the heavenly throne room (Hekhalot Rabbati §198). Davila,
Liturgical Works, 158.
69
These headings may indicate that the Songs were meant to accompany the Sabbath holocaust in the
Jerusalem Temple if they are pre-sectarian. See Num. 28:9-10; Ezek. 46:4-5; 2 Chron. 29:27-8.
70
The exception is the very first publication on the Songs; Strugnell, “Angelic Liturgy,” 335.
 249

juxtaposition of terms, excepting ‫זבח‬, appears in Ezek. 45:17,71 again with regard to the

offerings for Sabbaths, new moons, and appointed feasts. Throughout, the Songs draw

upon both sources.72 Additionally, cereal offerings and drink offerings are expected as an

addition to the usual tamid offering every Sabbath in Num. 28:9-10.

In a heavenly setting, however, “sacrifice” that recalls “slaughter” is otherwise

unattested, relying instead on Ezekiel and the priestly legislation in the Pentateuch. The

heavenly juxtaposition of “slaughter” and “odor” is striking: one indicates the

dismemberment of an animal; the other, smoke and incense. “Odor” is paired with

“pleasing” throughout the Hebrew Bible. The phrase “pleasing odor” or “soothing odor”

(‫ )ריח ניחוח‬is ubiquitous in the priestly instructions for the sacrificial cult with the smoke

of burnt animal offerings (e.g., Gen. 8:21; Lev. 1:9, 13, 17; Num. 15:3, 13, 14, 24; 28:2),

cereal offerings (e.g., Lev. 2:2, 9, 12), and even libations (e.g., Num. 15:10; 28:8).

The ubiquity of “pleasing” in the priestly legislation makes its absence here

conspicuous. Newsom suggests, “The Shirot seems intentionally to vary biblical

terminology relating to the technical matters of the cult, perhaps as a means of suggesting

the difference as well as the correspondence between the heavenly and earthly service.”73

While a dense occurrence of these terms occurred in Lev. 23:37, “offering,” “libation,”

“pleasing odor,” and “acceptable” or “favor” appear together in 4Q220 1:9 (Jub. 21:9):

“And you will offer all of this up as a sweet aroma which is acceptable before the LORD

together with its (fruit) offering and its libation for a sweet odor, the bread of a burnt

71
It is not surprising given the very close relationship between the Holiness Code and Ezekiel.
72
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 372.
73
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 372-3.
 250

offering to the LORD” (trans. Wintermute). Song 13 ties the cultic interests of the

priestly legislation, Ezekiel, Jubilees together, while placing them in a heavenly context.

Overall, the language of slaughter is striking, pushing the terminology to correspond even

more clearly with these priestly sources (P, H, Ezekiel, and Jubilees), yet the variations of

terms and the doubled emphasis on the odor of the offerings and odor of the libations

begin to move into the trajectories found in other sources of emphasizing evanescent,

non-corporeal aspects of heavenly sacrifice.

Moreover, the term “favor” (‫ )רצון‬refers to God’s acceptance of an offering and,

thereby, the person who offers it.74 It occurs twice in Song 13, once in each of the first

two fragments, which also discuss the high priestly garments (11Q17 ix:3; 4Q405 23ii:6).

While it commonly refers to sacrificial practice, it is also associated with the high priest’s

headpiece when he makes an offering on behalf of the people:

And you shall make a plate of pure gold, and engrave on it, like the engraving of a
signet, “Holy to the LORD.” And you shall fasten it on the turban by a lace of
blue; it shall be on the front of the turban. It shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and
Aaron shall take upon himself any guilt incurred in the holy offering which the
people of Israel hallow as their holy gifts; it shall always be on his forehead, that
they may be accepted before the LORD. (Exod. 28:36-38)

Isaiah, moreover, associates an accepted sacrifice with Sabbath observance, in which

anyone who keeps the Sabbath and the covenant can offer sacrifices at the altar in the

temple and those sacrifices will be accepted (Is. 56:6-7). The acceptance of an offering

or sacrifice is general (see Lev. 1:3), but appears in a universalizing prophetic oracle that

associates Sabbath observance with an acceptable offering and, more pertinently for the

Songs, in the Tabernacle vision of the description of the high priestly garments, in which

74
E.g., Exod. 28:38; Lev. 1:3; Isa. 56:7; for an “acceptable sacrifice” (‫ )מנחת רצון‬in Dead Sea Scrolls, see
1QS ix 5; CD xi 21; or “acceptable works” (1QS ix 13, 23); Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 372;
Davila, Liturgical Works, 158.
 251

the wearing of “holy to the LORD” makes the high priest’s offering on behalf of the

people acceptable. Thus, it is an auspicious word to appear in a Sabbath song devoted to

high priestly garments. Proper Sabbath worship and proper vestments by the heavenly

priesthood lead to acceptability of the heavenly sacrificial offering and those who offer it.

The rare heavenly sacrificial language of Song 13 draws upon the cultic

prescriptions of the Pentateuch, the Holiness School, Ezekiel, and perhaps Jubilees, using

combinations of terms that recall proper observance of appointed times (Sabbaths, new

moons, and feasts) to offer sacrifices in the temple, that tie the acceptability of sacrifice

to proper observance of the Sabbath (Isaiah), or the proper wearing of the high priestly

vestments from Exodus 28. Indeed, the primary concern of sacrifice for the rest of Song

13 will rest upon the celestial priesthood’s ephod and the “structure of the breastplate.”

The Heavenly High Priestly Garments and God’s Glory

While the first part of the fragment (11Q17 ix) focuses upon sacrifice, relying

upon and varying the cultic terminology from priestly sources and the few other heavenly

sacrificial scenes in ancient literature, the second part of the fragment and the second

fragment (4Q405 23ii) focus on the high priestly garments, activating language from

Exodus 28 and 39. While actual sacrifices in heaven are rare in ancient literature, there is

substantial fascination with vestments and investiture in the heavenly realm.75

Priestly investiture denotes a shift in status, particularly in apocalypses in which a

human figure tours the heavens. The giving of priestly garments signals a shift from

human to angelic or divine status, allowing one to serve as a celestial priest, although in

75
See Himmelfarb, Ascents to Heaven, 29-46.
 252

Testament of Levi, Levi is invested and given the earthly priesthood after his heavenly

vision (TLevi 8:2). In contrast, Enoch receives “glorious garments” and becomes “like

one of the glorious ones” (2 Enoch 22:8-10), a transformation taken to greater lengths as

Enoch becomes Metatron in 3 Enoch 12:2: “He fashioned for me a glorious cloak in

which brightness, brilliance, splendor, and luster of every kind were fixed, and wrapped

me in it” (trans. Alexander). What is common in these transformations by investiture is

brightness and luminosity. In fact, ministering angels in 3 Enoch 32 put on cloaks of

‫חשמל‬, the luminous substance from Ezekiel 1. Likewise, in the Hypostasis of the

Archons the angel Eleleth appears like fine gold and snow in (NHC II, 4 93:14-15).

Earlier works also discuss luminosity, but more strongly emphasize a cosmic

interpretation; that is, the garments represent the world.76 Sir. 50:5-11, for example,

generally regards the high priestly garments as glorious, luminous, and cosmic. Josephus

also gives them a cosmic interpretation, representing the four elements, much like the veil

of the Tabernacle (Ant. 3.184; cf. War 5.212-13), as does Philo (Spec.Laws 1.84-97; cf.

Questions on Exodus 2.85). The Wisdom of Solomon, too, emphasizes that the high

priest’s robe depicts the entire world (18.24). The Letter of Aristeas indicates that they

are otherworldly, and will transform those who look upon them (96-99).77

This emphasis on luminosity of garments, whether cosmic or just glorious,

contrasts with the blue, purple, and scarlet of the high priestly garments in Exodus 28 and

39, but even there they were for “glory and for beauty” (‫( )לכבוד ולתפארת‬Exod. 28:2).

Instead, they recall Aaron’s garments during the Day of Atonement ritual: “He shall put

76
Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 113-28.
77
Cf. Gen.Rab. 38:8; y. Yoma 7:3, 44b; Lev. Rab. 21:11.
 253

on the holy linen coat, and shall have the linen breeches on his body, be girded with the

linen girdle, and wear the linen turban; these are the holy garments” (Lev. 16:4). In order

to enter the divine presence of the Day of Atonement, Aaron must wear all linen—and

therefore white—clothing. From this evolved the widespread understanding in a variety

of sources, including those most in line with the Pentateuchal priestly documents (e.g.,

Ben Sira), that the high priestly garments were bright, glorious, and sometimes cosmic.

In Song 13, there is a brief reference to the “wonder and the structure of the

breastplates of…” (‫)פלא ותבנית חשני‬. Again, the “structure” (‫ )תבנית‬from Exod. 25:9, 40

governs this passage as it did with the Tabernacle and the throne-chariot, since the high

priestly garments are part of the vision the LORD gave to Moses. The breastplate (‫ )חשן‬is

part of the high priestly garments, worn with the ephod (‫ )דאפו‬and a robe, coat, turban,

and girdle (Exod. 28:4). The turban had the divine name inscribed on it. Elsewhere at

Qumran, there is mention of “turbans of his glory” (4Q408 3:5). Both the breastplate, or

literally breastplates, and the ephod are mentioned in this passage. And like the earlier

sources, such as Letter of Aristeas, it elicits a response, here wonder (‫)פלא‬, in the viewer.

The succeeding fragment includes plural ephods (‫ )אפודיהם‬for the “holy ones”

(4Q405 23ii:5). In Exodus 28, the ephod (28:5-14) and the breastplate (28:15-30) are

mentioned successively. Both the ephod and the breastplate, like the veil, were made of

twined linen with blue, purple, and scarlet thread as well as gold. The ephod had two

onyx stones, one for each shoulder, with each stone having six of the names of the tribes

of Israel, set in gold filigree upon some sort of shoulder pieces made for the ephod.

These set stones had golden chains, twisted like cords, attached to them (Exod. 28:5-14).

The breastplate likewise had stones for the twelve tribes, but each tribe had its own stone
 254

with its name engraved, set in four rows of three stones, with twelve different types of

stones: sardius, topaz, carbuncle, emerald, sapphire, diamond, jacinth, agate, amethyst,

beryl, onyx, and jasper. Again, they were set in gold filigree. It too has golden chains

twisted into cords attached. It was then attached to the shoulder pieces of the ephod by

blue cording. Thus, the ephod and the breastplate worked together. They were

constructed similarly, had the same elements, and had stones for the twelve tribes in order

to bring them before the LORD for remembrance (Exod. 28:12, 29).78 Other priests got

coats, girdles, and caps, but the breastplate and the ephod belong to the high priest alone.

The plural breastplates and multiple ephods in the next fragment indicate the

multiple heavenly high priests, pluralized as nearly everything else. Multiple ephods,

however, are indicated in 1 Sam. 22:18, where there are eighty-five priests wearing

ephods. Josephus claims multiples for every aspect of the high priestly garments except

for the crown with God’s name on it (Ant. 8:93).79 The ministers in the inner chambers

of the heavenly sanctuary are all the heavenly equivalent of high priests. They are likely

to be equated with the “chiefs of the ones wondrously clothed to attend ( ‫ראשי לבושי פלא‬

‫)לשרת‬, chiefs of dominions, dominions, of holy ones belonging to the King of holiness in

all the heights of the sanctuaries of the kingdom of his glory” (4Q405 23ii:10-12), found

toward the end of the second fragment.80 The ephods and the breastplates in the heavenly

holy of holies indicate the remembrance and intermediation for Israel.

78
The breastplate also included the enigmatic Urim and Thummim, which had some sort of oracular
purpose (Exod. 28:30). For a discussion of the breastplate and the Urim and Thummim in Qumran
literature, see Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 222-51.
79
Flecther-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 228-32.
80
Fletcher-Louis (All the Glory of Adam, 358) takes these to be humans who have become angelified, or
“angelomorphic humans.”
 255

Moreover, the high priestly garments were “for glory and for beauty” ( ‫לכבוד‬

‫( )ולתפארת‬Exod. 28:2). As noted, their glorious quality is prevalent in second temple

literature. The “beauty” or “ornamentation” shows up throughout the Songs in the

heavenly sanctuary. Although reconstructed in this Song just before “multicolored”

(11Q17 ix:7), it appears more clearly in the next fragment with the ornamentation or

beauty of carvings (‫)תפארת לפתוחי‬. Likewise, typical terms for the Tabernacle hangings

mirroring the high priestly garments reoccur in both fragments, again clearer in the

second. “Multicolored” (‫)רוקמה‬, found in Songs 5, 7, 9,10, and 12, which referred to

“colorful glory, wondrously dyed, purely salted” (4Q405 20ii-21-22:11), recurs in both

fragments (11Q17 ix:7; 4Q405 23ii:7). The high priestly garments mirror the multi-

colored hangings and veil of the Tabernacle, being scarlet, purple, and blue.

Most interesting is the second fragment’s phrasing: “In their station are

multicolored spirits like woven workmanship, carved with forms of adornment” ( ‫במעצד‬

‫)פלאיהם רוחות רוקמה כמעשי אורג פתוחי צורות הדר‬. It is the spirits who are multicolored

(‫ )רוקמה‬and woven; they are like the Tabernacle’s woven multicolored hangings, veil,

and high priestly garments. Alternatively, Newsom suggests the phrase is an ellipsis

“clothed with multicolored garments.”81 Alternatively, given the tendency for objects to

come to life in the heavenly holy of holies, that, like the celestial architecture, the high

priestly garments themselves are living spirits. In Newsom’s rendering, the spirits wear

the high priestly garments; in the other, the spirits are the garments, and, therefore, these

81
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 336.
 256

spirits can be described in the same manner as the garments themselves. In that case, the

spirits themselves would be multicolored “like woven workmanship.”82

This latter phrase is fairly unique, occurring in Song 13 perhaps twice (it has to be

reconstructed for 11Q17 ix:7). “Woven workmanship” (‫ )מעשי אורג‬only occurs in the

Hebrew Bible in the context of the high priestly garments in terms of the robe of the

ephod (Exod. 28:32; 39:22) and the coat of the priests and high priests (Exod. 39:27).

The robe of the ephod was a woven garment, all blue, with blue, scarlet, and purple

pomegranates of finely twined linen with golden bells attached at the bottom between the

pomegranates (Exod. 28:31-5; 39:22-26). These multicolored ministering spirits are like

the high priestly garments themselves, being “like woven workmanship.”

The line, like Song 10, combines woven cloth material and the language of

“carved forms of adornment” (‫)פתוחי צורות הדר‬, again aligning Tabernacle (woven cloth)

and temple (carved stone) language (1 Kings 6:29; 2 Chr. 3:7). Nonetheless, the

terminology of carving occurs even more frequently in the context of the high priestly

garments, regarding the engraved stones of the ephod and the breastplate (‫)פתוחי חתם‬

(Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 39:6, 14, 30). Fletcher-Louis points out that while the Songs as a

whole use a variety of terms for engraved, carved, or incised images (‫חקק‬, ‫חקה‬, ‫)חרת‬, the

use of ‫ פתח‬only occurs here and one other place with regard to the engravings in the nave

(4Q405 14-15 i 5). Thus, while occasionally used elsewhere, the employment of

“engraved forms of adornment” in the context of the high priestly garments, particularly

82
Fletcher-Louis, “Heavenly Ascent,” 391; idem, All the Glory of Adam, 366-8; Davila, Liturgical Works,
160-61.
 257

the “structure of the breastplates,” likely evokes the twelve incised stones that represent

Israel on the high priestly breastplate from Exodus 28.83

The next section reinforces the association of these heavenly spirits and the high

priestly garments, consistently returning to Exodus and Ezekiel 1:

In the midst of the glory of the appearance of scarlet,

dyed garments of light of most holy spirit take up their holy station before
the king,
spirits of pure dyed garments
in the midst of an appearance of whiteness.
And the likeness of the spirit of glory is like the workmanship of Ophir,
giving light,
and all their crafts are purely salted, craftsmanship like woven workmanship.
(4Q405 23ii:8-10)

The first part of this section form a chiasmic pattern framed by the “appearance of

scarlet/white” that envelop the “dyed garments of light of the most holy spirit” and the

“spirits of pure dyed garments.” The first clause includes phrases suggestive of Ezekiel,

such as fiery light, yet associating these qualities with the high priestly garments: “in the

midst of the glory of the appearance of scarlet, dyed garments of light” ( ‫בתוך כבוד מראי‬

‫)שני צבעי אור‬. This line parallels “in the midst of the appearance of white” ( ‫בתוך מראי‬

‫)חור‬. Scarlet was one of the colors associated with the high priestly garments, but the

absence of purple and blue and the presence of white suggest a different connotation. On

the most holy earthly sacrifice, when the high priest entered the holy of holies on the Day

of Atonement, he wore all white linen, from which the tradition of the high priestly

garments’ luminosity sprang. Moreover, both scarlet and white denote fiery appearance.

This is not surprising given the widespread assumption of the high priestly garments

83
Fletcher-Louis (All the Glory of Adam, 357) sees a reference to the woven girdle of the ephod to which
the breastplate was attached in 4Q405 23ii:10. It is possible, since it reiterates the “woven” terminology
found only in the high priestly garments (Exod. 28:8, 27-28; cf. 29:5; 39:5, 20-21; Lev. 8:7), but there is no
specific indication of the girdle or band in the fragment as it currently stands.
 258

being luminous, glorious, and cosmic in Second Temple literature.84 Fire is further

associated with theophany (Exod. 24:17; Ezek. 1:4, 13-14, 27). Scarlet and white are fire

and light, but the fire and light of theophany is being aligned with the multicolored

“dyed” garments of the high priest. One views the dyed garments in this scarlet and

white atmosphere as one’s gaze is directed toward the “likeness of the spirit of glory.”

The scarlet and white ultimately denote proximity to the luminous visible glory.

The subsequent language of “dyed garments of light” heightens the luminosity of

the vestments and recalls the usage in Song 12, where “dyed garments” was juxtaposed

with “purely salted” and “multicolored.” The central portions use similar terms in

different construct orders: “dyed garments of light of most holy spirit” and “spirits of

pure dyed garments.” These garments are of “the most holy spirit,” seemingly out of

place because it is in the singular. Newsom suggests that it may connote “spiritual

substance”; that is, the vestments are “most holy, spiritual garments.”85 Given the later

singular use of “spirit” in this fragment, however, the “most holy spirit” is likely the

“spirit of the glory.” Nonetheless, these spiritual garments, then, take up their station,

acting as heavenly beings themselves. This phrase, furthermore, parallels “spirits of

[purely] dyed garments.” The spiritual garments and the spirits of garments are

equivalent: the luminous high priestly garments are alive and set in the midst of scarlet

and white luminosity and the “glory” and “spirit of glory.”

The passage continues to discuss this “glory” in terms of “dyed garments,”

“purely salted” and “multicolored.” While “multicolored” has already been discussed,

84
Sir. 50:5-11; Wisd.Sol. 18.24; Philo, Spec.Laws 1.84-97; Josephus, Ant. 3.184; Letter of Aristeas 96-99;
2 Enoch 12; 3 Enoch 22
85
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 337.
 259

there is also, borrowing some Ezekiel-like terminology, reference to these cultic elements

from Exodus: “And the likeness of the spirit of glory is like the workmanship of Ophir,

giving light, and all their crafts are purely salted, craftsmanship like woven

workmanship” ( ‫ודמות רוח כבוד כמעשי אפירים מאירי [או]ר וכול מחשביהם ממולח טוהר חשב‬

‫)כמעשי אורג‬. Like the “dyed garments of light” above, this workmanship emanates light.

The reference to Ophir is to a place associated with fine gold (1 Kgs 9:28; Isa. 13:12; Ps.

45:10; Job 28:16; 1 Chr. 29:4) or the gold itself (Job 22:24). While this places another

aspect of the high priestly garments in the text—gold—Ophir is never quite associated

with the high priesthood, the temple, or its cult, except in 1 Chr. 29:4, where describes

the gold overlay in Solomon’s temple. It is likely due to this association that it appears in

this Song.86 Again, all of these things are “purely salted” and “like woven

workmanship,” the technical terminology of the Tabernacle and its cult, denoting the

incense before God’s throne and the priestly clothing to approach it. Fletcher-Louis,

however, points out that incense has become associated with the high priestly garments

more directly since ben Sira (Sir. 50:9).87 The constellation of terms for these garments,

being “dyed,” “purely salted,” and “multicolored,” therefore, mirror and likely are the

holy spirits surrounding the throne in Song 12.

Finally, the “likeness of the spirit of glory” adapts the “appearance of the likeness

of the glory of the LORD” (Ezek. 1:28; cf. Exod. 24:17). The singular “spirit” here and

in the earlier phrase refers to this singular “glory” on the throne. Yet the Ezekiel allusion

86
Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 337-8, suggests that, due to its associations with fine gold, it
has the same sense as ‫( כמעשה לבנת הספיר‬Exod. 24:10) and ‫( מעשה רשת נחשת‬Exod. 27:4), and should be
considered equivalent to “fine gold work.”
87
All the Glory of Adam, 364-5; cf. Rev. 1:13.
 260

more significantly connects this song with the previous one. Song 12, in fact, followed

Ezekiel 1’s depiction of the throne-chariot, but stopped just short of the anthropomorphic

vision at the end, which depicts the “appearance of the likeness of the glory of the

LORD.” The vision of the glory is what the visionary, in fact, might expect as the

culmination of these liturgies. The anthropomorphic glory has been diverted or displaced

until Song 13, where the “likeness of the spirit of glory” is described in terms of the high

priestly garments. This explains the careful distinction between the earlier “spirits” and

the singular “spirit of the glory.” It indicates that the high priestly garments, living

beings themselves, represent the visual manifestation of God, the glory. While the high

priestly garments were “for glory and for beauty” in Exodus 28:2, and while they were

always described as glorious in Second Temple writings, now they have become the

glory, or the spirit of the glory that filled the Tabernacle in Exod. 40:34 and that Ezekiel

saw in Ezek. 1:28. As such, Song 13 is a very appropriate conclusion to the entire series

of Songs and not just an addendum: the spirit of God’s glory can be seen through the

high priestly garments because the garments constitute it.88

Only the culminating Sabbath Song includes a sacrifice, a slaughter juxtaposed

with the odor of offerings and the odor of libations. Sacrifice in heaven is rare in ancient

sources, and “slaughter” even rarer. Such combinations of sacrificial terms lead to even

closer associations with the cultic prescriptions of the priestly sources of P, H, Ezekiel,

and Jubilees. The descriptions of the high priestly garments of the breastplates and the

ephods draws upon Exodus 28 and 39 and Leviticus 16, returning to Moses’ vision on

Sinai, signaled again by the “structure of the breastplates.” Again, ‫ תבנית‬terminology has

88
See Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 374-7, 378-81.
 261

entered the discussion. Other very specific terms also appear. “Woven workmanship”

only occurs in Exodus 28 and 39 with regard to the high priest’s cloak, while “purely

salted,” here in association with the crafts of woven workmanship that may be animate

itself, being “spirits,” resonates with the incense used in the inner chamber (Exod. 30:34-

6). These terms only appear in Moses’ vision. The “multicolored” aspect again recalls

the cloth furnishings of the Tabernacle, the veil, and the priestly garments more

generally. Yet again, the heavenly context involves some transformation of meaning:

Ezekiel’s language again enriches the Song; the garments themselves take on a luminous

quality appropriate for a heavenly context and may even be alive, being, in fact, the very

“spirit of the glory.” The Songs uniquely fuse Moses’ vision of the tavnit, Ezekiel’s

language, and tendencies found among apocalyptic literature to describe the heavenly

priesthood. Indeed, as the Song says, “These are the chiefs of the ones wondrously

clothed to attend (‫)אלה ראשי לבושי פלא לשרת‬, chiefs of dominions, dominions, of holy

ones belonging to the King of holiness in all the heights of the sanctuaries of the kingdom

of his glory” (4Q405 23ii:10-12). One cannot approach, attend, or minister without being

properly attired, without being “wondrously clothed” in the Glory itself.

 262

Conclusion to Part 2: The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice are the first works since Ezekiel and the

Pentateuch to bring the Sabbath and the Sanctuary together, bringing the entire ancient

Near Eastern pattern of creation, rest/Sabbath, enthronement, and sanctuary in tow. For

the sectarians who used these liturgies, like Ezekiel and the Pentateuch they likely drew

upon this relationship when apart from the temple. The alignment of the Sabbath with

the sanctuary, making the Sabbath the access to the holiness of the sanctuary, thus far

mostly appears at the poignant moments of the sanctuary’s absence.

At the same time, these liturgies reconfigure this sacred space-time by transposing

it onto the heavenly realm. Moreover, they are the first texts to bring the “tavnit” in

Exod. 25:9 and 40 and the heavenly sanctuary together explicitly, and the first to speak of

a heavenly Tabernacle. It is no coincidence that these elements converge at the same

time—Tabernacle, and the Sabbath/sanctuary correlation ,‫—תבנית‬since they all derive

from the same source: Moses’ vision of the pattern of the Tabernacle interlaced with the

Sabbath. Indeed, this heavenly space-time is organized largely around Moses’ vision

enriched primarily by Ezekiel, but also Kings and Chronicles. Like the Pentateuch, and

like Jubilees, these liturgies are temporally organized from creation and culminate in

Shavuot, the covenant renewal ceremony for those behind Jubilees and the Dead Sea

sectarians as well as the commemoration of Moses on Sinai. It had by this time been

liturgically combined with Ezekiel 1 and Psalm 68, and one can find clear influence of
 263

the Shavuot liturgies on Songs 11 and 12. Moreover, just as Moses’ vision of the

Tabernacle is interlaced with the Sabbath and occurred on the seventh day, so every

seventh day, these liturgies evoke the heavenly sanctuary using imagery from Moses’

Tabernacle and Ezekiel’s throne visions. The Sabbath is the temporal access to the

heavenly temple, ritually coordinating heavenly space and holy time.

Moreover, there is heightened Tabernacle imagery and language governing Songs

7, 10, 11, 12, and 13, which follow Exodus 25-30 in organization and terminology.1 The

term “Tabernacle” itself is used in Songs 7 and 12, becoming the first instances ever of a

heavenly Tabernacle, mirroring Exodus 25 specifically, but invoking the entire vision of

Exodus 25-30, which is of the “pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of its

furnishings” (Exod. 25:9). From there, one progresses to the veil or ‫פרוכת‬, a term only

used in priestly documents: Exodus 26 and 1 Chronicles. After this, one moves into the

throne room beyond the veil (Songs 11-12), which constitute the two Sabbaths

surrounding sectarian Shavuot. In Song 12, one finally sees the “structure of the throne-

chariot” in the context of the “Tabernacle.” This language again hearkens to the ark-

throne in Exodus 25 set in context of the “pattern of the Tabernacle” of that same chapter.

Yet again, the imagery is transformed by its heavenly position and enriched by very close

correspondences with Ezekiel 1. Finally, Song 13 introduces the heavenly sacrifice itself

with great interest in the heavenly garments, the “structure of the breastplates” and the

ephod/s of the high priest, which, like the celestial architecture, are alive. The actual

interest in the garments and the specific language of “woven workmanship,” which only

occurs in Exodus 28 and 39, again, recall Moses’ vision of the Tabernacle. These

spiritual garments of the most holy spirit are living manifestations of the glory as the
1
Cf. the summary of Tabernacle imagery in the Songs by Davila, “Macrocosmic Temple,” 3-4.
 264

appearance of the spirit of glory. As such, Songs 7 and 12 mirror Exodus 25; Song 10,

Exodus 25; and Song 13, Exodus 28 and 39.

The ‫ תבנית‬emerges throughout this section of the heavenly Tabernacle, being the

first time that is has been explicitly invoked for the heavenly sanctuary (Songs 7, 12, and

13). In Song 7, it is highly prevalent alongside its synonym ‫מבנית‬, framing the first

mention of the heavenly Tabernacle, either the chief-most Tabernacle or the Tabernacle

of the chief. Yet it has altered in meaning. While in Exodus, it meant “pattern” and in 1

Chronicles, “plan,” here it has become “structure,” designating the thing itself, something

of permanence. This “structure” language continues to govern the visions of the Songs as

it does Moses’ vision on Sinai. In Song 12, the Tabernacle frames the language of the

“structure of the throne-chariot.” Finally, in Song 13, it designates the “structure of the

breastplates,” with regard to the heavenly high priestly garments.

With the term “multicolored” (‫)רוקמה‬, the Songs depict the animate celestial

architecture, beginning with the Tabernacle in its entirety, moving through the nave to the

veil, through the veil, and into the inner sanctuary. This distinctive language appears in

Songs 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13, recalling the multicolored woven or embroidered hangings,

veil, and high priestly vestments in the vision of the ‫ תבנית‬of the Tabernacle.

Another term, however, has emerged that exclusively occurs in the context of the

Tabernacle: “purely salted.” It regards the special incense used just before the ark-

throne, infusing the Tabernacle’s most holy place (Exod. 30:34-5). In the Songs it only

appears just after one passes the veil (Songs 10, 11), during the discussion of the animate

celestial architecture, combining imagery from Moses’ Tabernacle and Solomon’s

temple, but in a heavenly setting, where the distinction between a celestial god/angel and
 265

a carved image is blurred. It recurs in Song 12 in the Ezekiel-like vision of the throne-

chariot, quite appropriate for something that only occurs just before the ark-throne in

Exodus. And finally, it shows up in Song 13. Thus, it occurs in three consecutive and

culminating Songs when one has finally passed the veil and entered the heavenly inner

sanctum. It is associated with the inner sanctum and those who are allowed to enter it,

such as the participants themselves who mirror the heavenly high priests.

An additional result of this investigation is the relationship the Songs may have

with Jubilees. Jubilees presents in narrative form what the Songs do in liturgical form,

since it also emphasizes conjoined angelic/human worship on the Sabbath and Shavuot,

organizing its narrative, much like the Pentateuch, from creation to Moses’ revelation on

Sinai. Moreover, it frames the entire narrative as Moses’ revelation, yet doing so in terms

of Sabbaths, Sabbatical years, and Jubilees. The Sabbath is the angelic response to God’s

creation and something subsequently given to humans like Shavuot, circumcision, and

the priesthood, and, henceforth, something they observe together. As such, it provides a

narrative etiology for the conjoined Sabbath worship presented in the Songs. One

significant divergence, however, is the lack of discussion of the sanctuary—it is quite

conspicuously absent although anticipated (Jub. 1.27-29). It is as if the narrative breaks

away just before the instructions to build the Tabernacle.

The synthesis of primarily Exodus and Ezekiel and many other biblical

theophanic traditions within the framework of the holy time of the Sabbath and holy

space of the heavenly Tabernacle reconfigures and aligns both Moses’ and Ezekiel’s

visions. This reconfiguration indicates that from the perspective of those performing the

Songs, Moses and Ezekiel and other figures had seen and heard the same reality. The
 266

Sabbath liturgies, these alignments of the Sabbath and the heavenly sanctuary in which

the Sabbath gives access to the heavenly Tabernacle and heavenly worship, allow the

participants to reenact and see what Moses and Ezekiel saw while they join in a single

community with the heavenly priesthood. This theophanic alignment allowed them to

experience the most holy heavenly sanctuary and the divine presence when they were at

odds with the contemporary Hasmonean priestly establishment in Jerusalem and,

therefore, lacked access to the traditional forms of mediation between humans and God.

The only other document that brings Sabbath/rest and the sanctuary together with

the whole pattern of creation, Sabbath-rest, enthronement, and sanctuary, yet placed on a

heavenly plane is the Epistle to the Hebrews. In this way, the Songs and Hebrews show a

great deal of broad similarities, both participating in the same Pentateuchal patterns and

transforming holy spacetime into heavenly spacetime. Both speak of the heavenly

Tabernacle, and do so using the “pattern” that Moses saw. It also has the rare interest in

Melchizedek as the heavenly high priest—something perhaps present in the fragments of

the Songs. Yet while Hebrews like the Songs reconfigures the entire priestly pattern of

holy spacetime in the heavenly realm, it does so in a different manner with the exaltation

and enthronement of Jesus becoming a centripetal force that attracts all of this imagery.

As such, instead of reenacting Moses’ and Ezekiel’s visions, the exhortations to “enter”

the Sabbath-rest and the sanctuary and approach the throne, God, and the heavenly

Jerusalem invite the addressees to enter what Moses saw.

 267

Introduction to Part 3: The Patterns of the Priestly Space and Time of the Heavenly

Homeland in the Epistle to the Hebrews

After the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, Hebrews is the only other document

from this period that brings the Sabbath and the sanctuary together with the entire scheme

of creation, Sabbath, sanctuary, and enthronement. Like the Songs, Hebrews articulates

this relationship as a heavenly one, emphasizing the heavenly Tabernacle by interpreting

the “pattern” that Moses saw. Hebrews also places a Melchizedekian high priest—

Christ—in the heavenly Tabernacle like the Songs may have done. The Songs and

Hebrews, as such, share many rare qualities. Nonetheless, differences exist between the

two works in genre, focus, purpose, and their historical situation. How does the Epistle

to the Hebrews appropriate and transform the relationship between the Sabbath and the

sanctuary within the scheme of creation, rest, enthronement, and sanctuary? On what

basis and to what ends does it shape this sacred spatiotemporal configuration? How do

this relationship and this scheme illuminate Hebrews? How does Hebrews contribute to

the development of this relationship and this scheme?

Among the many interwoven themes permeating through the expository and

exhortative passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews,1 the multiplex ancient Near Eastern

pattern emulated by the Pentateuch features prominently. Hebrews activates the ancient

1
Lawrence Wills, "The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity," HTR 77
(1984): 277-99; C. Clifton Black, "The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian
Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills," HTR 81.1 (1988): 1-18.; Harold W. Attridge, "Paraenesis in a
Homily (λόγος παρακλήσεως): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the 'Epistle to the Hebrews',"
Semeia 50 (1990): 211-26.
 268

scheme of creation, enthronement, rest, and the sanctuary in a sophisticated manner, by

anticipating or foreshadowing each theme, developing it, and retrospectively echoing it.

Moreover, each theme becomes interlinked with the others in what becomes an intricate

web of intratextual references; where one theme is being developed, the others become

implicated as they are foreshadowed, retrospectively echoed, or juxtaposed.2 Jesus

attracts these themes and provides access to heavenly realities for his followers, but God

remains the ultimate source: he is the creator of all things, the Sabbath rest is God’s, the

heavenly tent and city are pitched and prepared by God, and Jesus is enthroned next to

God’s throne.3 Moreover, Hebrews, like the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, maintains a

heavenward perspective throughout and is the only other document in the period to

coordinate the Sabbath and the sanctuary, making them equivalent in heavenliness.

Creation has many facets in Hebrews from the creation of all things to sustaining

and restoration. It clusters in the first three chapters where it is juxtaposed with the acts

of restorative purification that lead to the Son’s enthronement, emphasizing God as

creator of all things (1:2-3, 10-12; 2:10-11; 3:3-4). It is echoed in 11:3 where the world

is created by God’s word. God also builds and prepares the heavenly city (11:10, 16) and

2
Barrett (“Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 363-93) nearly makes this connection. He
organizes his evidence into three parts: rest, faith and the heavenly city, and the heavenly temple. He
demonstrates that these themes share a common eschatology of “partly fulfilled and partly forward-
looking.” Even these juxtapositions, however, fall out of later important analyses of the eschatology of
Hebrews; see, for example, MacRae, “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology,” 179-99. Nonetheless, Barrett
misses the nexus of relationships within Hebrews that reinterprets the promised land tradition in light of
Sabbath to make heaven a place of Sabbath rest. The heavenly temple and the Sabbath rest-as-heavenly-
homeland traditions are further woven together through the exhortations to enter God’s Sabbath rest and the
sanctuary and to draw near to God and God’s throne. This linguistic connection can be conceptually placed
into a larger thematic pattern of creation, enthronement, rest, and the sanctuary which draws into it the
trajectory of the ongoing morphology of the relationship between the Sabbath and the Tabernacle.
3
At the same time, this pattern inextricably enmeshes itself into additional concerns of covenant, the
Melchizedekian priesthood, perfection, exempla of faith and obedience, endurance of suffering, judgment,
and the heavenly homeland, i.e. the heavenly Jerusalem.
 269

pitches the heavenly tent (8:2). The opening scene (1:2-3; 2:11) emphasizes the

sustaining of creation, which is restored and perfected by Jesus’ actions as high priest and

sacrificial victim, bringing his own blood into the heavenly holy of holies as a once-and-

for-all expiation for sins. This heavenly ritual event leads to Jesus’ enthronement and

provides a way for Jesus’ followers to enter the heavenly sanctuary. This restorative

aspect of creation is emphasized throughout Hebrews, introduced in the opening

exordium and following catena (1:2-3; 2:11), emphasized in Jesus’ role as a faithful and

merciful high priest (2:17-18; 3:1-7; 4:14-16), and extensively developed in Heb. 5-8,

where Jesus is appointed high priest after the order of Melchizedek (5:1-10; 6:19-20; 7:1-

8:7), a discussion continued in the following chapter, which emphasizes the perfecting

aspect of Jesus’ heavenly sacrificial activities (9:7-14, 23-28; 10:1-18). The power to

create and restore, however, also comes with the power to destroy (1:11-12; 12:26-29).

Enthronement appears throughout the homily. It results from Jesus’ acts of

purification, in which he restores creation, expiates sins, and ushers in a new age of

access into the heavenly holy of holies.4 It also relates to creation (1:3-4; 1:8-9), is

juxtaposed with Sabbath rest (4:14-16), and is within the “true tent,” the heavenly

sanctuary (8:1-2; 10:12-13; cf. 9:5).

The passage on Sabbath rest (3:7-4:11) stands out in the context of these thematic

patterns, since it is neither anticipated nor retrospectively echoed, yet its central role in

the cosmogonic pattern and, thereby, its strong associations with the sanctuary make its

inclusion in the homily appropriate. Although it is not specifically mentioned again after

this passage, it develops strong intratextual ties. Here the interplay between space and

4
1:3-4; 4:14-16; 8:1-2; 10:12-13; cf. 12:2.
 270

time reaches an initial climax, something that will recur with the Tabernacle in 9:1-14.

Hebrews 3:7-4:11 transforms the spatial land-as-rest into the temporal Sabbath rest of

God. The passage parallels chapter 11, where the land of promise becomes the heavenly

homeland and the heavenly city (esp. 11:13-16, 39-40), anticipating the heavenly

Jerusalem (12:22-24; 13:10-15). Both passages emphasize the transformation of

Promised Land traditions, faithfulness, and obedience. Moreover, the “today” of 3:7-

4:11 aligns with the “apart from us” of 11:39-40: neither the disobedient (3:7-4:11) nor

the obedient (11:1-12:2) could enter the heavenly Sabbath rest and city “today” or “apart

from us.” Both passages culminate in Jesus enthroned as high priest and perfecter of

faith respectively. Moreover, the culminating exhortation to “enter” God’s Sabbath rest

juxtaposed with approaching the throne (4:16) mirrors entering the sanctuary (10:19).

The sanctuary is the heavenly counterpart of the Sabbath: they are both “entered”

(4:11; 10:9) and have a heightened interplay between spatial and temporal dimensions

(3:7-4:11; 9:1-14). It may introduce the Sabbath passage, receiving an anticipatory

glance in 3:2-6 as the multivalent God’s “house,” the most prevalent term for the

sanctuary in the Bible. God’s “house” will be explicitly equated with the “sanctuary” in

Heb. 10:19-25. This “house” also links up with the language of the merciful high priest,

and attains heightened intratextual associations with the exhortation to approach the

throne (4:14-16). Sanctuary imagery clusters in chapters 8-10 with the “true tent” and the

“pattern” Moses saw, again in terms of enthronement and the high priestly actions (8:2-5;

cf. 9:23; 10:1), and the two tents (9:1-14, 23-28), which, while also linking with high

priestly actions and the covenant, has spatiotemporal registers in which the Tabernacle

both maps out the earthly and the heavenly realms and the current and future ages,
 271

making explicit that the true tent is heaven itself. The way into the holy of holies, which

represents the age to come, is not yet open in chapter 9, but with Jesus’ sacrificial actions,

Jesus’ followers are exhorted to enter the sanctuary by his blood (10:19-25). This

passage picks up language from chapters 3-4, alternating between the synonyms of

“sanctuary” and “house,” drawing near, having confidence, and the merciful high priest.

Finally, 13:10-15 brings in the altar connected with the tent in connection with going

“outside the camp” and seeking the city to come (i.e., the heavenly Jerusalem).

While these elements of the cosmogonic pattern are tied together through linkages

and intratextual resonances, they are also brought together by the actions of entering

(εἰσέρχοµαι) and drawing near (προσέρχοµαι). This is the LXX translation of the cultic

terminology for priests to draw near (‫ )קרב‬and enter (-‫ )בא ב‬the sanctuary to officiate,

making Jesus’ followers priests in the footsteps of the great high priest. The listeners are

exhorted to “strive to enter” God’s Sabbath rest (4:11), “draw near” to the throne (4:16),

“enter” the sanctuary (10:9) and to “draw near” once within (10:22). They are enabled to

do this by Jesus’ sacrifice, being perfected by it, acting in ways only priests and the high

priest previously could, something emphasized when Jesus acts as a mediator so that the

auditors can draw near to God (7:19, 25). Moreover, they have come (in the perfect

tense) to the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22). Other figures also “draw near,” such as priests

in their daily sacrifices that do not perfect (10:1) and Enoch (11:6). In addition to this

heavenward movement of entering rest and the sanctuary and drawing near to the throne

and God is a lone instance of “going forth” (ἐξέρχοµαι) outside the camp (13:13). It is a

complementary movement: to move into and toward something, such as the heavenly

city, one must move away from something else, the “camp.”
 272

Within this intricate process, Hebrews activates the interplay between temporal

and spatial dimensions more than any other document in this study not only in terms of

the interrelationship between Sabbath and sanctuary in the cosmogonic pattern as

constituting heavenly spacetime, but the Sabbath rest and the Tabernacle are the most

explicit “spacetimes” individually. Although scholars sometimes are divided between

spatial and temporal aspects of Hebrews, preferring “spatial” cosmology if they tend

toward a Platonic/Philonic reading and a “temporal” perspective based upon a more

apocalyptic/eschatological stance,5 many now see an intersection of the spatial and

temporal aspects,6 noting the sophisticated spatiotemporal interplay throughout

Hebrews.7 While previous scholarship focuses upon the broad contours of spatial

cosmology and temporal eschatology in terms of two realms (earthly and heavenly) and

two ages (past and future), this study investigates how these same aspects play out with

5
Although an apocalyptic perspective already contains spatial and temporal perspectives in the revelation
of what is “above and below” and “past and future.” Therefore, those who argue that Hebrews is more
“temporal” because of its apocalyptic stance focus only on one aspect of apocalytpicism, i.e. eschatology,
and ignore apocalyptic spatiality.
6
E.g., Barrett (“Eschatology in Hebrews,” 385) saw this as from one perspective, Platonic archetypes, and
from another, eschatological events, which, by definition, is impossible since Platonic archetypes have no
temporal aspect—they cannot be events unless they are no longer considered Platonic; MacRae (“Heavenly
Temple and Eschatology”) tried to explain this by postulating a Platonic author meeting half-way for an
apocalyptically oriented audience; Harold W. Attridge (The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the
Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 223-4) also recognizes the intersection of
earthly-heavenly and old-new, seeing it as a combination of Philonic or shared Hellenistic spatial
conceptions that have been Christianized with an emphasis on new-old. He rightly notes that one must not
subordinate the temporal to the spatial or vice versa.
7
Marie E. Isaacs (Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Sheffield
Academic Press, 1992) 218-9) has noted that the various spatial images throughout Hebrews (e.g.,
promised land, sanctuary, city) have temporal references as well, largely that they are accessible in the new
age, the imminent eschaton. Kenneth L. Schenck (Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings
of Sacrifice (Cambridge University Press, 2007)) correlates the “two-age” temporality of Hebrews with the
“two-realm” spatial cosmology, seeing an alignment in temporal and spatial dualisms using a “text-based
approach,” meaning without assuming a particular background, such as Platonism. While my discussion of
the sacred spacetime of Hebrews differs from both Isaacs and Schenck—my focus is on different passages
and imagery—it broadly coheres with their observations of the homilist’s sophisticated understanding of
the nexus of sacred space and sacred time.
 273

regard to the Sabbath and the sanctuary. Both 3:7-4:11 and 9:1-14 overlap spatial and

temporal registers: rest starts out as spatial only to become temporal, while the

Tabernacle both represents space of the tent and time of the current age and the age to

come. Moreover, the language of copies, shadows, etc., heightens the spatiotemporal

interrelationships: the earthly sanctuary may be an antitype of the heavenly type, but

temporally are also shadows of good things to come (or that have come). Finally, there is

the central ritual event set on the cosmic stage that generates the entire process, an

ultimate Day of Atonement, the Sabbath of Sabbaths in the heavenly Holy of Holies.

The Place and Time of Hebrews

The date and provenance of Hebrews is notoriously difficult to determine. While

many different contexts have been proposed—Judea, non-Judean Palestine, Alexandria,

and Rome8—no origin or destination has solid grounding. While often Alexandrian

elements are detected—similarities to Philo or Wisdom of Solomon—the most traditional

setting is Rome, partly due to the ambiguous internal evidence of chapter 13 referring to

those “from” or “away from Italy,” suggesting Italy as an important center for the author

and audience, and partly due to the external evidence of Roman document 1 Clement,

which is the first text to allude to Hebrews, meaning Hebrews had already been

circulating in Rome by late first to early second century. Sometimes canon issues are

considered: the western church resisted putting Hebrews in the canon, while the eastern

church wanted to do so. The argument is that the western church, i.e. Rome, recalled that

it was not Pauline (Eus. H.E. 3.3; 6.20), whereas the eastern church regarded it as so,

8
Isaacs (Sacred Space, 22-45) appears very tentatively to prefer a Palestinian context, e.g. Caesarea or
Syrian Antioch, but provides a nice overview of the strengths and weaknesses of each proposed location.
 274

even though they, too, recognized its author was not Paul, although it had Pauline

“authority.” Origen, famously, threw up his hands to say, “Gods knows” (Eus. H.E. 6.12-

14), but thought it had the Pauline thoughts (Eus. H.E. 6.25).

The dating debate revolves around whether it was written before or after the

destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Pre-70 dating relies upon the use of the present

tense to refer to the sacrificial system and the absence of references to the destruction.

Yet post-70 documents used the present tense when speaking of Jewish institutions

(Josephus, Ap. 2.77; 2.193-98; Ant. 3.151-60, 224-57; 1 Clem. 40).9 Hopes for the

temple’s rebuilding were likely not quashed until the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 132-135 CE.

Later dates have been proposed due to the audience believing for some time.10

The author places himself at least in the second generation of the Jesus movement, and

neither he nor his audience has met the founders of the movement (Heb. 2:3). The text

speaks of the leaders as having endured for their faith (13:7), while noting that in the past

they themselves endured some sort of persecution including imprisonment and seizure of

property or helped those who were imprisoned (10:32-39), but not to the point of

shedding of blood (12:4). If in Rome, Nero would be a primary candidate in 64 CE,

although the Claudian expulsion in 49 CE is also possible.11 Given the way Hebrews

9
For some of what follows, see Kenneth L. Schenck, "In the Absence of the Temple," Hebrews and the
Parting of the Ways (Forthcoming). I would like to thank Schenck for sharing this chapter with me
prepublication. See also idem, Cosmology and Eschatology, 190-98.
10
David A. DeSilva (Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle "to the
Hebrews" (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000) 2-20) discusses the social
situation of the addressees of Hebrews. See further Attridge, Hebrews, 9-13.
11
Patrick Gray (Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of Superstition
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) 15) sees Heb. 10:32-6 as a potential reference to the
Claudian expulsion of the Jews (and Christians) from Rome in 49 CE, and, therefore, as evidence of
Hebrews being sent to a Roman audience. Suetonius, Claudius 25.4, famously states that the Jews were
expelled due to the disorder caused “impulsore Chresto,” a statement which may or may not refer to
Christians in Rome. Overall, however, Gray portrays persecution in Hebrews in a way that makes more
 275

asks the hearers to recall these persecutions, it appears that some time has passed since

then. By using the addressees as exemplars of faith, the author reminds them of and

urges them to persevere in their former courage.12 Nonetheless, the audience had been in

the community for some time, and the homilist chides them for failing to progress in their

faith (5:12). While a date as early as the Jewish War (66-73) would be possible given

these circumstances, Schenck suggests that a mid-70s date best fits the situation.

Schenck argues that the theological developments in Hebrews make the most

sense in the post-70 situation. The delay of the Parousia (see 9:28) contributes to the

community’s “faith fatigue,” exhorting the audience to endure “a little while longer”

(10:37), a phrase not found in Paul’s writings, who expects a more immediate second-

coming. Hebrews combats this “faith fatigue” with exhortations to remain faithful and

obedient and using fear of judgment (10:28-31).13 Hebrews even links apostasy with re-

crucifying “the Son of God,” after which one has past the point of no return (6:3-6). No

one and nothing remains hidden, but everything is revealed in judgment (4:11-13).14

sense in the second century than the first. DeSilva, in contrast, sees these small-scale persecutions in terms
of honor and shame discourse in the ancient Mediterranean; David A. DeSilva, "Despising Shame: A
Cultural-Anthropological Investigation of the Epistle to the Hebrews," JBL 113.3 (1994): 439-61; David A.
DeSilva, Bearing Christ's Reproach: The Challenge of Hebrews in an Honor Culture (North Richland Hills:
BIBAL Press, 1999) 21-36. On Suetonius’s account, see Dixon Slingerland, "Suetonius Claudius 25.4,
Acts 18, and Paulus Orius' Historianum Adversum Paganos Libri VII: Dating the Claudian Expulsion(s) of
Roman Cassius Dio," JQR 83.1-2 (1992): 127-44; Dixon Slingerland, "Suetonius Claudius 25.4 and the
Account in Cassius Dio," JQR 79.4 (1989): 305-322; Leonard Victor Rutgers, "Roman Policy toward the
Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome during the First Century CE," Judaism and Christianity in Firsty
Century Rome, ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1998) 106; Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two
Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) 8-16; David Noy, Foreigners at
Rome: Citizens and Strangers (London: Duckworth, 2000) 42.
12
DeSilva, Bearing Christ’s Reproach, 22-3, 58.
13
See Gray, Godly Fear, 146-54.
14
For warning throughout Hebrews, see David A. DeSilva, "Exchanging Favor for Wrath: Apostasy in
Hebrews and Patron-Client Relationships," JBL 115.1 (1996): 109-115; idem, “Despising Shame,” 452-6.
 276

Moreover, circumcision is a non-issue for Hebrews, but was a live issue when

Paul wrote Romans (in the 50s); instead, all have inherited Abraham’s promises through

faith and obedience. It also does not speak in terms of “Jews” and “Gentiles.” The lack

of such an issue may point to a period after inclusion had long been established.

Moreover, the idea that Christ’s once-and-for-all atonement that takes away sins, purifies,

sanctifies, and perfects in a way that the earthly sacrificial system did not, and is never to

be repeated goes beyond anything early documents claim. This would have been an

extraordinarily divisive issue had it been put forward before the temple’s destruction, and

yet it has left no impression on other documents. Instead, Acts 21 presents the early

Christian community as fully participating in the sacrificial system.

The most interesting argument for a post-70 situation is that the statement in

13:14 that they have no “remaining city” best fits the post-destruction period. The

primary city in mind just after speaking of the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22-24) would be

the earthly Jerusalem. The statement that they have no remaining city on the earth would

have heightened poignancy after its destruction, and concurrently may be a jibe at the

“eternal city,” Rome. The destruction of the earthly city mirrors the emphasis on the

heavenly city (11:13-16; 12:22-24) that God is preparing—one that cannot be

destroyed—a thoroughgoing heavenward reorientation, which, Schenck argues, would

offer consolation in the wake of the annihilation of the temple and Jerusalem.15 In short,

this would place the most likely dating of Hebrews after the destruction of the temple, but

before its use in 1 Clement in the late first to early second century CE.

15
So Isaacs, Sacred Space, 67.
 277

If post-destruction Rome were the primary early context for Hebrews, the great

Flavian building projects would have made an impression. The Jewish War undergirded

Flavian claims to the Principate. They celebrated the victory for ten years on their

coinage.16 The spoils from the Jewish war funded the Colosseum,17 were placed in the

Temple to Peace (built 75 CE),18 and were represented on the Arch of Titus,19 all three of

which helped to transform public space in Rome. For Jewish and early Christian

communities in Rome, this appropriation of the Jewish temple displayed publicly must

have made an impact. The temple implements were paraded through the streets before

being installed in the Temple of Peace. Mary Beard aptly describes the Triumphal

parade: “Along the route the crowds of Roman onlookers (many of whom traced their

‘Roman’ origins to some earlier war of conquest that had been celebrated in just such a

parade) witnessed the beginning of that rite de passage that would now turn these

conquered enemies and abject foreign prisoners into regular citizens.”20 Roman Jews,

having lived in Rome for almost two centuries and largely descended from slaves, now

observed the entrance of a new cohort of Jewish slaves.21 They saw the display of the

16
71 CE was the main issue, but continued in 72-3 and revived in 77-78. A ten-year anniversary issue
came in 80-81; James C. Walters, "Romans, Jews, and Christians: The Impact of the Romans on
Jewish/Christian Relations in First-Century Rome," Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998) 184, n.38.
17
Keith Hopkins and Mary Beard, The Colosseum (London: Profile Books, 2005) 33-4.
18
Josephus, War 7.158-61.
19
Tessa Rajak (Josephus: The HIstorian and His Society, Second Edition (London: Duckworth, 2002) 218)
writes, “Perhaps inspired by Titus’ arch, art and poetry in the Flavian period shows a fondness for
triumphal scenes and victory processions, both real and mythological.”
20
Mary Beard, "The triumph of the absurd: Roman street theatre," Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge
University Press, 2003) 25.
21
For the immediate fate of captives from the Jewish War, see Josephus, B.J. 6.414-20.
 278

spoils from the temple, the captive youths hand-picked for this occasion, and rebel leader

Simon b. Gioras, who would later be executed, as they passed in the procession, heading

toward the Capitoline. As Josephus describes it, the triumph of Titus and Vespasian was

a spectacular affair, with many events and figures competing for the onlookers’

attention.22 Although there is no direct account of Jewish responses to these Roman

scenes, reports from other peoples’ sacred objects being incorporated into Roman public

space in a Triumph report those peoples being stunned, sad, and incited to anger.23 Such

ranges of emotion from grief to anger garnered from these examples represent probable

Jewish responses to the imperial triumph, its recounting on the Arch of Titus, and the

incorporation of their cult into the Temple of Peace. At the same time, the “temple tax”

became the fiscus Iudaicus, which went into the coffers to rebuild the temple of Jupiter

Capitolinus, which had burned down the previous year.24 The Jerusalem temple had been

effectively redistributed and integrated into Roman civic space.

The Roman possession of the cultic implements of the Jerusalem temple would

give greater poignancy to the cultic imagery of Hebrews. In such a context, the mobile

desert Tabernacle would provide a ready place of speculation of how to carry on one’s

tradition within a heavenly context untouched by Roman destruction and appropriation.

22
See Beard, “Roman street threatre,” 39-40. Cf. the description of the triumphal procession of Aemilius
Paullus (167 BCE) in Plutarch, Life of Aemilius Paullus 32-4.
23
Roman writers indicate the types of responses that such an appropriation of foreign cults into Rome
could elicit. Cicero wrote that a deputation from Asia and Achaea saw the “revered images of their gods”
taken from their homelands in the Forum (Verr. 2.1.59). Dumbfounded, they stood gazing at them and
wept. Polybius spoke of the spoils taken by Marcellus from Syracus in 211 BCE, which, he claims, would
cause observers to remember the ruin of their own country by the Romans, provoking hatred of the Romans
(Polybius 9.10).
24
Josephus, War 7.218. Martin Goodman, "Nerva, the Fiscus Judaicus and Jewish Identity," JRS 79
(1989): 40-44; Noy, Foreigners at Rome, 163; While this would have been humiliating from a Jewish point
of view (Rajak, Josephus, 227), from a Roman point of view it would have been good policy (Rutgers,
“Roman Policy,” 113).
 279

Given the conceptual configurations surrounding the Sabbath and Tabernacle, Hebrews

represents the survival of the Jewish priestly impulse in a post-destruction situation where

the Jerusalem cult and priests had physically been transplanted to Rome and reoriented in

terms of holiness to heaven. The homily’s audience stands at the threshold of the

heavenly realm, but may fall away, making the example of the wilderness generation in

3:7-4:11, who failed to enter God’s Sabbath rest, apt. These dire circumstances directed

this first-century writer to return to the beginning, to recreate creation through the

Sabbath-sanctuary scheme with Jesus as the central pivot in a stable, heavenly context.
 280

Chapter 9: Creation, Perfecting Purification, and Destruction

Creation is a rare theme in the New Testament, with only four or five texts

connecting it with Jesus: John 1:1-5, 1 Cor. 8:6, Hebrews 1:2-3, 10-12 (cf. 2:10-11; 3:3-

4; 11:3), Colossians 1:15-17, and perhaps Revelation 3:14. John famously presents Jesus

as the “Word through whom all things were made” (John 1:3); Paul rewrites the Shema in

1 Cor. 8:6, making Jesus the one Lord “through whom are all things” in parallel to the

one God “from whom are all things”; Colossians 1:15-17 presents Jesus as the first-born

of creation “in” and “through” whom “all things were created” and “in him all things

hold together”; and Rev. 3:14 ambiguously calls Jesus the “origin of God’s creation” (ἡ

ἀρχὴ τῆς κτήσεως τοῦ θεοῦ)—whether he was created first, the originator of creation, or

the purpose of its origin is unclear. Mostly Jesus is the means or agent through whom

God creates and the sustainer of creation, and sometimes the first-born of creation itself.

Likewise, creating, sustaining, and even destroying have many facets in Hebrews, but

there is a division within Hebrews with God creating and being the ultimate source of “all

things” including the heavenly tent and city, and Jesus being the agent of creating the

“ages” and “heaven and earth” and sustaining of all things.

Creation is renewed by purification (1:2-3; 2:11). This perfecting purification is

enacted through Jesus’ actions as faithful and merciful high priest (2:17-18; 3:1-7; 4:14-

16), who was appointed after the order of Melchizedek (5:1-10; 6:19-20; 7:1-8:7), and

sacrificial victim, bringing his own blood in the holy of holies, which, unlike the
 281

Levitical priestly activities, perfects his followers and gives them access to the heavenly

sanctuary (9:7-14, 23-28; 10:1-18). This action generates the entire pattern of creation,

enthronement, rest, and sanctuary. By this heavenly ritual event Jesus is enthroned, and

his followers can approach the throne, enter rest, and enter the sanctuary.

Creator, Sustainer, Destroyer

Creation is concentrated fittingly at the beginning. Creation and sustaining “by

his powerful word” strongly relate to purification, which leads to the Son’s enthronement

(1:2-3). The opening further emphasizes the Son’s creative power of founding the

heavens and the earth (1:10-12), while emphasizing that God ultimately is “for whom”

and “by whom” all things exist (2:10-11; 3:3-4), which is later echoed in 11:3 where the

world is created by God’s word; it is, moreover, God who sets up the heavenly tent and

prepares the heavenly city (8:2; 11:10, 16; cf. 9:11, 24). Yet with the power to create and

sustain comes the power to destroy (2:11-12; 12:26-29): while God can create and the

Son can sustain all things by his “powerful word” (1:2-3; 11:3), the voice can shake and

remove heaven and earth, leaving only the unshakable realm (12:26-29).

The prologue (Heb. 1:1-4) entwines creation, purification, and enthronement,

which persist in the following catena of quotations that exalt Jesus above the angels

through his role as Son, enthronement, and role as creator. It succinctly reveals the

establishment and maintenance of creation, Jesus’ and God’s roles in it, and their

relationship to one another through it. It discloses the moment of Jesus’ completion of

his acts of perfecting purification, inaugurating a new age of access to the heavenly

realm. The clauses of “being appointed heir of all things (ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόµον
 282

πάντων),” Jesus’ identity as “effulgence of his glory and stamp of his substance

(ἀπαύγασµα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ),” as the one who maintains

“all things by his powerful word (φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήµατα τῆς δυνάµεως αὐτοῦ),”

and the one who “made purification of sins (καθαρισµὸν τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ποιησάµενος),”

culminate in enthronement (ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς µεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς).

The relationship between the Father and Son is expressed through creation. The

Son is the “heir of all things” “through whom God created the ages” (δι’ οὖ καὶ ἐποίσεν

τοὺς αἰῶνας) and the sustainer of all things. The Son’s identity as the “effulgence of his

glory and stamp of his substance” (ἀπαύγασµα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως

αὐτοῦ) will be matched by being the “firstborn” (1:6). Agency, however, belongs

ultimately to God, who “brings the firstborn into the world (οἰκουµένην).” This language

indicates the Son’s appointed divine status, yet retains one degree of subordination of

Jesus to God—not sharing God’s glory or nature, but being the effulgence of his glory

and having the stamp of his nature—although exalted above all else.

In Hebrews, Jesus is the one through whom God created the ages (δι’ οὖ καὶ

ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας) (cf. John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-17).1 It is noteworthy that

1
This language resembles Colossians 1:15-17. Similar to being the effulgence of God’s glory and the
stamp of his nature, in Col. 1:15, Jesus is the “image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation,”
recapitulated two verses later as being “before all things” (1:17). This recalls Adam imagery of Gen. 1:27,
who was made in the “image of God” and is the first of all humans. This same title in Hebrews emerges in
the context of God bringing the firstborn into the world. The phrase in Colossians and perhaps less clearly
in Hebrews, however, also implicates Jesus as a creature, albeit the first. This appears similar to Wisdom
in Sir. 24:1-11, where God is clearly presented as the creator of all things (24:8), but Wisdom comes forth
from his mouth (24:3) and so represents divine utterance. Wisdom is a clearly a creature (24:8), but created
preexistently, from the beginning, and eternally (24:9). Yet, in contrast to Colossians and Hebrews,
although this firstborn creature exists eternally into the past and future, she is not an agent of creation. In
fact, Wisdom represents the Torah revealed to Moses (24:23). In Colossians and Hebrews, this firstborn
creature has a creative role as does the Word in John. In Hebrews, the Son is the inheritor and carrier or
sustainer of “all things” (τὰ πάντα) and the one “through whom he [God] created the ages” (δι’ οὖ καὶ
ἐποίσεν τοὺς αἰῶνας). In John the Word is with God and was God, and “all things were made through him”
 283

Jesus is not the reason for creation (cf. Col. 1:15-17) nor the source “from whom” all

things exist—that position is reserved for God. While other sources emphasize that “all

things” were made through him (John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-17), Hebrews places “all

things” in a different position. The Son is the one through whom God creates the “ages”

(τοὺς αἰῶνας), while the Son is appointed as heir to “all things” and “carries all things by

his powerful word.” “All things” is something the Son inherits rather than creates, and

the language of “appointing,” common in Hebrews (e.g., 5:5-10),2 subordinates Jesus to

the appointer. This subordinate position, however, is a powerful one: while in Genesis 1

God creates all things through his powerful utterance, in Hebrews the Son maintains “all

things” by his “powerful word” (1:3) in a tradition of the powerful utterance the reaches

as far back as the Marduk’s efficacious speech in the Enuma Elish.

Jesus is further depicted as creator in the catena of quotations in chapter 1. This

catena emphasizes Jesus’ exaltation above the angels as Son (1:5-7), enthronement (1:8-

9, 13), and role as creator and destroyer (1:10-12). His role as creator and destroyer

(1:3). 1 Cor. 8:6 likewise divides creative functions between the Father and Jesus Christ: the Father is the
one from whom are all things and for whom we exist, the Son, Jesus, is the one through whom are all
things and through whom we exist. The movement is from the father through the Son, with the Son as
agent of the Father, who has ultimate creative potential. Col. 1:16 similarly states that all things are made
“in,” “through,” and “for” him. The “in” is unique and the “for” was appropriate to God in 1 Cor. 8:6.
Moreover, he is “before all things, and in him all things hold together” (1:17). While being the agent and
purpose of creation, he also sustains creation, holding it together. Yet he is still not the “from,” the source
of creative potential.1 Similarly in 1 Corinthians, Colossians, and John, Jesus is the agent and sustainer of
creation, while God or the Father is the ultimate source and purpose of creation, except in Colossians where
all things are also made for Christ. In general, Schenck (Cosmology and Eschatology) reads the opening
scene in its entirety as the moment Jesus is enthroned after making purification for sins—thus even the
language of creation and his Sonship is something he attained at that same moment. See James F. McGrath,
The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context (Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 2009) 38-50.
2
Here Jesus is appointed high priest, has to learn obedience, and is made perfect, and is designated, all
indicating language of the process of becoming.
 284

appears in a quotation from Ps. 102:25-27 between passages emphasizing Jesus’

enthronement at the right hand of God (1:8-9, 13):

You in the beginning, O Lord, founded (ἐθεµελίωσας) the earth

And the heavens are the works of your hands.
They will perish (ἀπολοῦνται), but you remain,
And they will all grow old like a garment
And like a mantles you will roll them up
And they will be changed {like a garment}
But you are the same and your years will never end.3

As vv. 8 and 10 make clear, this is God speaking about or to the Son. The Son, therefore,

has the title of Lord, and as Lord he has founded the earth and the heavens are his

handiwork. Yet they will perish, grow old, and be rolled up, whereas Jesus, the Son, will

last forever as his throne is “forever” (1:8). This is not quite “all things,” since, as 12:26-

29 makes clear, the heavens and the earth will be destroyed by Jesus’ voice, but there is

the realm that cannot be shaken, which is the heavenly sanctuary, the heavenly Jerusalem,

where God and Jesus are enthroned. In this passage, Jesus is the Lord who creates earth

and the heavens, much like Gen. 1:1, but this is not quite the same as “all things.”

Returning to the opening exordium, what does it mean that he is the one through

whom God creates the “ages”? Most translations prefer “world” instead of “ages,” but

this masks the plural aspect of τοὺς αἰῶνας and the term’s temporal dimension, connoting

era, age, or epoch. In fact, Hebrews uses other terminology for “world,” such as

οίκουµἐνη (1:6; 2:5), which often means “inhabitable world” but gains some extra

connotations in Hebrews, and κόσµος (9:26; 10:5; 11:7), which means “ordered world.”

While these phrases are used equivalently, differentiations remain.

3
All of the translations in Hebrews are my own unless otherwise noted.
 285

Firstly, οίκουµἐνη is used twice. It refers to when God brings the firstborn into the

world for all the angels to worship him (1:6), much like the angels or “gods” worship

God in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and other literature. The term is also used to

refer to the “world to come,” in speaking of God subjecting the “world to come” (τὴν

οίκουµένην τὴν µέλλουσαν) to Jesus and not to the angels (2:5-9). The Son rules over the

coming world, yet this is something the Son must be given by God, who also appointed

him as inheritor all things. This terminology demonstrates a degree of temporal

consciousness with the traditional Jewish phrase of the “world to come” (‫)עולם הבא‬, and,

moreover, is used interchangeably with “age to come” (µέλλοντος αἰῶνας; 6:5), where it is

juxtaposed to the “word of God” (θεοῦ ῥηµα), the same “word” (ῥηµα) used to depict the

Son’s sustaining of “all things” by his powerful word, yet in this case they are juxtaposed

as things the addressees had previously “tasted,” alongside the “heavenly gift,” and

partaking of the “holy spirit.” The “world to come” and the “age to come” appear

equivalent, especially since the “world to come” already expresses temporality through

the “to come” that slides easily into “age.” The use of οίκουµἐνη in Hebrews has a more

limited sense than “ages” and definitely “all things,” being reserved for the specific place

where and moment when Jesus is revealed and receives sovereignty.4

In the latter parts of Hebrews, κόσµος is the preferred term for “world” (9:26).

This passage argues that Jesus’ sacrifice is once-and-for-all and eternally efficacious,

otherwise he would have to sacrifice himself repeatedly, every year, “from the foundation

of the world” (άπὸ καταβολῆς κόσµου). The next verse says he has appeared “at the end

4
Cf. the “city to come” (13:14; cf. 11:13-16; 12:22-24)
 286

of the age” (συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων) to enact his efficacious atoning self-sacrifice. This

may hint at how Jesus creates the “ages.” The “end of the age” is when Jesus came into

the “world,” inaugurating the new age, the “age to come.” Jesus came into the world (εἰς

τὸν κόσµον) to abolish the old system and establish a new by his own self-sacrifice (10:5).

In both cases, the κόσµος relates to Jesus’ self-sacrifice, while the οἰκουµήνη emphasizes

his exaltation and sovereignty, which, as 1:2-3 emphasizes, is based upon his purification

for sins. Finally, Noah’s faithfulness and righteousness in building the ark “condemned

the world” (κατέκρινεν τὸν κόσµον), giving further emphasis to the limited connotations of

the two terms for “world” (11:7). This latter term refers to this world, which has been

destroyed once (11:7), equivalent to the “shakable” earth and heavens in 12:26-29.

While the οἰκουµήνη can be equivalent with “age” in terms of the “world/age to come,” it

overlaps with κόσµος in terms the presentation of Jesus to the shakable “world.”

While “ages” as a temporal facet appears to be equally limited as “world,” it may

not be. In addition to being the “age to come” and the end of the current “age,” the term

also refers to eternity. God brings the Son into the “world” to emphasize that his throne is

“for ever and ever” or literally “from age to age” (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος). The term is

related to “forever” (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) throughout Hebrews: he is a high priest “forever”

(5:6; 6:20; 7:3, 7:17, 25, 28), lives forever (7:21, 24), sacrifices himself for sins forever

(10:12), perfects forever (10:14), is the same forever (13:8), and receives glory forever

and ever (13:21). It is difficult to ignore the temporal aspects of the term in a passage

highly emphasizing time between “of old” and “these last days,” the “current age” and

the “age to come,” which subsequently uses the same term to express the eternal
 287

foundation of Jesus’ throne. An “age” is an “ever,” and “age” language is most

extensively associated with Jesus’ eternal actions that create the “ages.”

In 1:2, where the Son is the agent through whom God created the “ages,” the term

is more expansive than the two terms for “world,” since the “ages” can connote ongoing

existence, whereas the “world” has been destroyed (11:7) and will be again (12:26-29),

except in its role as the “world/age to come.” There is another way in which Jesus has

created the “ages.” He appears at the end of an age, and his self-sacrificial purifying

actions, connected in 1:3 to creation and enthronement, inaugurate a new age of access to

heavenly realm. In Heb. 9:9, a term also often translated as “age” (καιρός) appears, where

the outer tent represents the “present age,” implying that the inner tent, the holy of holies,

represents the age to come. The word καιρός means “time,” the “right time,” or “season.”

It does not have the expansive sense of αἰῶν, but is appropriate for differentiated time. In

this age, the “current season,” one only has access to the earthly outer tent, whereas in the

age to come, due to Jesus’ actions, one will ahve access to the heavenly holy of holies.

The division between the two, the veil, Jesus’ flesh (10:20), is rent by Jesus’ sacrifice and

thus, by making the inner tent or the sanctuary accessible (Hebrews 9-10), has

inaugurated a new age. Jesus is the means of the creation of the ages because he comes

at the end of the age and his actions in the heavenly sanctuary create a new age, leaving

him enthroned “from age to age.” In terms of creation, “ages” remains the preferred term

(1:2; 11:3)—neither of the other terms for “world” is used in a creation passage.

These “ages” are juxtaposed to “all things.” While in John 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, and

Col. 1:16-17, Jesus is the means by or through which “all things” (τὰ πάντα) exist, in

Hebrews Jesus’ relationship to “all things” differs. It is possible that creating the ages is
 288

the equivalent to “all things,” but in Hebrews “age” language is most commonly

associated with Jesus. One exceptional reference juxtaposes the foretasted “age to come”

with the tasted “God’s word,” while God also creates the “ages” by his “word” (ῥῆµα

11:3). By contrast, in Hebrews “all things” is most appropriate to God as the maker of all

things, and from whom and for whom all things exist, with Jesus related to “all things” as

inheritor and sustainer, but not as agent of creation.

In the prologue, Jesus “being established as the inheritor of all” and “carrying all

things by his powerful word” surrounds his association with making the ages: he is

passively appointed by God to inherit “all” and actively sustains “all things,” much like

in Col. 1:17 Jesus holds all things in himself. This may be the connotation of 1 Cor. 8:6,

where all things are from and for God and “through” or “by” Jesus, making Jesus not the

source or purpose of all things, but the means by which all things currently exist.

Nonetheless, Jesus’ agency in making all things is excluded in Hebrews: the creator of

“all things” is God. Jesus, however, inherits and maintains all things.

Heb. 2:10-11 emphasizes that God is the one by whom and for whom “all things”

exist (δι’ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι’οὗ τὰ πάντα). This is the climax of a passage beginning in

2:1, where Jesus is identified as the “man” and “son of man” from Ps. 8:4-6 who was

briefly made lower than the angels and then exalted and crowned, subjecting everything

to him.5 It plays on Jesus as “pioneer” or “originator” (ἀρχηγός) whom God “completed”

or “perfected” (τελειῶσαι) by his suffering (cf. 12:2). Here “all things” are subjected to

Jesus (vv. 8-9). The homilist emphasizes this saying, “Now in putting all in subjection to

5
Schenck (Cosmology and Eschatology, 54-9) reads this as referring to Jesus and humanity in general who
are lower than the angels, but will be perfected in their suffering and then exalted and glorified.
 289

him, he left nothing outside his control” (2:9). The movement of the passage indicates

that attaining sovereignty over “all” was something that Jesus attained, elaborated by the

author’s interpretation that Jesus was crowned due to “the suffering of death” (2:9). This

aligns with 1:2-3, where Jesus inherits “all” and sustains “all things.” Nonetheless, the

author admits that “we do not yet see all things subjected to him.”

Jesus attains sovereignty over “all things” as he inherited “all” in the opening

passage. Both passages tie Jesus’ sovereignty over all in terms of his enthronement,

which was predicated upon his purifying activities. Reaching 2:10-11, there is

pronominal difficulty. The nearest antecedent for “he” in 2:10 is Jesus from the previous

lines, but “he” is the subject who perfects the “originator,” who is Jesus. The one “by

whom and for whom all things” exist must be God, who perfects the Son, Jesus. This

shift in subject may be signaled by the “for” (γάρ), which throughout this passage signals

a shift in topic, subject, or segment of thought (vv. 5, 8, 10, 11). The governing subject

of the entire passage is God (v. 5), who subjected the world to come not to angels (v. 5)

but to the Jesus (v. 9). The subject “he,” furthermore, in 2:8 is God and the “to him” and

“his” in the same verse would be Jesus, because sovereignty, the ability to subject all

things to someone else, is God’s to give to “him,” i.e., Jesus.

As such, the “he” in 2:10 must be God, who subjects all things to Jesus and

perfects Jesus through suffering. God remains the purpose, the “for whom” (δι’ ὃν) and

the means, the “by whom” (δι’ οὗ), “all things” exist, while Jesus is given sovereignty

over all things. So far in Hebrews, God does not use Jesus as the means for “all things,”

but only for the “ages,” yet he enables Jesus to inherit, sustain, and be sovereign over all.
 290

This relationship is reinforced in 3:4. This passage discusses the faithfulness of

Moses and Jesus as servant and Son respectively in God’s “house” (ἐν [ὅλῳ] τῷ οἴκῳ

αὐτοῦ). The passage emphasizes that Jesus was “appointed” and remained faithful to the

appointer. God’s “house” is a multivalent term. It is the most prevalent term in the

Hebrew Bible and Jewish writings for the temple, outnumbering the terms “temple” and

“sanctuary,” an association Hebrews later explicitly relies upon (10:21). The passage of

Moses being faithful in God’s “house” would recall the Tabernacle. Yet it also has

genealogical associations, such as in the “house of David”; the “house of God” could in

that sense refer to all of Israel. At the same time, Hebrews toys with the term to compare

Jesus and Moses, making Jesus more glorious to Moses as the builder has more honor

than the house, making Moses the house! The homilist then writes, “For every house is

built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.” Thus the house has shifted from

its primary connotation as sanctuary or people, to Moses himself, to “all things,” and,

finally, the “house” becomes “us” (3:6). The one who “builds,” an interesting verb to

express creation (cf. 11:10), “all things” is God. The creation of “all things,” therefore,

for Hebrews is most appropriate for God, while the sustaining and even sovereignty of

“all things” is appropriate for Jesus, who receives this appointment from God.

Several more passages indicate God’s creative role (4:4; 8:2; 11:3, 10, 16), but do

not refer to “all things.” Heb. 4:4, however, quoting Gen. 2:2, does speak of when God

rested “from all his works” (ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργον αὐτοῦ), inaugurating the creation

Sabbath. The purpose of the passage is to encourage the addressees to enter God’s rest,

ceasing from one’s labors as God did in an idyllic imitatio dei. Nonetheless, “all his

works” recalls “all things,” maintaining God as the ultimate source of creation and rest.
 291

God also creates “by his word” in 11:3, which condenses and recombines the

language used in 1:2-3:

By faith we understand that the ages were created by the word of God
(κατηρτήσθαι τοὺς αἰωνας ῥήµατι θεοῦ), so that the invisible would become the
visible (εἰς τὸ µὴ ἐκ φαινοµένον τὸ βλεπόµενον γεγονέναι).

While Jesus was the means by which God created the “ages” in Heb. 1:2, here God

creates the ages by his “word” (ῥηµα).6 Similarly, while God creates the ages “by his

word,” Jesus carries all things “by his powerful word” (τῷ ῥήµατι τῆς δυνάµεις αὐτοῦ).

Just as God creates by his word, Jesus sustains by his powerful word, using the same

word for “word” (ῥῆµα). So, God creates the “ages” by the Son (1:2) and by his “word”

(11:3), but God creates by his word (11:3) and the Son sustains by his word (1:3).

It is tempting to identify the “word” by which God creates the ages in 11:3 with

the Son by which God creates the ages in 1:2, since both appear as God’s agent of

creating “the ages.” If so, would the “powerful word” of the son also be considered an

agent of some sort, since both God and the Son use a “word” to create and sustain

respectively? More likely, using the same terminology in creation scenes allows one to

compare and contrast God and the Son. Both have powerful utterances, and the passages

emphasize the power of their utterance to create and sustain the world.7

Creation by speech is as old as the Enuma Elish, where Marduk creates, destroys,

and recreates the constellations by his utterance. His creation by utterance, like the Son’s

in Heb. 1:1-4, concludes with his investiture with the scepter, throne, and staff: his

enthronement as the divine king (11.15). Genesis 1:1-2:2 exploited creation by effective

6
Cf. 6:5, where the addressees have foretasted both the “age to come” and “God’s word (ῥῆµα).”
7
See Isaacs, Sacred Space, 201.
 292

utterance to great effect. Each day, God would speak “let there be,” and “there was.” Ps.

33:6 (32:6 LXX) likewise says, “By the word (‫בדבר‬, τῷ λόγῳ) of the LORD were the

heavens made / the starry hosts by the breath of his mouth.” This creative utterance is

discussed in traditions in which the world was created by or through God’s word (e.g.,

Philo, Alleg. Int. 3:96; Wisd Sol. 9:1; John 1:1-5). Both Wisdom and Solomon and John

emphasize that God created “all things” through his “word.” All three texts use λὀγος for

“word,” making Hebrews more unique in this respect. Hebrews uses the λὀγος in a scene

of judgment (4:12-13) in which the “word of the Lord” is sharper than a two-edged

sword, distinguishing between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and discerning and

exposing innermost thoughts and intentions (cf. 1 Enoch 62:2; Wisd Sol 18:15-16), yet in

creation, Hebrews prefers ῥῆµα without any clear “hypostatic” significance.8

Heb. 1:2-3 and 11:3 emphasize, like the Enuma Elish, Genesis, Psalms, and their

successors, the power of the utterance. God’s utterance creates the “ages,” and Jesus’

powerful utterance sustains all things. By using the same term, the text conjoins the

activities of the Father and Son, but also differentiates their speech capabilities between

creating and sustaining. Moreover, like the Enuma Elish, the Son’s powerful utterance

leads immediately to being invested with the symbols of sovereignty.

This specialization of labor also designates Jesus as destroyer. He creates the

earth and the heavens, and will roll them up like a garment (1:10-12). Just as he sustains

all things by his powerful word, he will destroy the earth and the heavens by his voice:

His voice shook the heavens then, and now he has promised, saying: “Still once
more I will shake not only the earth but also heaven.” This “once more” indicates
the removal of what is shaken, of what has been made, so that the things that are

8
Cf. Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 140-42.
 293

not shaken remain. Let us have grace, therefore, to receive an unshaken kingdom,
by which let us acceptably worship God with reverence and awe; for our God is a
consuming fire. (12:26-9)

“His voice” refers to the speaking of Jesus, whose blood speaks more graciously than

Abel’s (12:24). Quoting Hag. 2:6 or 2:21, Jesus becomes the one whose voice shook the

earth, and will shake heaven and earth, “removing” them, just as he rolls them up in 1:10-

12. The word for “removal” (µετάθεσις) can also mean change, yet the statement that

only what is not shaken will remain indicates that was is shaken will not remain, making

“removal” the meaning. Although these are things that have been made (πεποιηµένων), it

is not quite “all things,” since the unshakable kingdom—the heavenly Sabbath rest,

Tabernacle, homeland, city, Jerusalem—remain.9

God is the ultimate source and creator of “all things,” making “all things” in terms

of creation most appropriate for God, while Jesus is the agent of “the ages,” the inheritor

and sustainer of “all things,” and the creator and destroyer of heaven and earth. Creation

is instigated and sustained through God’s word and Jesus’ powerful word respectively,

while destroyed by Jesus’ voice. God creates those things that cannot be destroyed—the

heavenly tent and city. While “ages” and “all things” may be partly synonymous, the

author carefully distinguishes how they relate to God and the Son. God is the source and

purpose of all things, whereas Jesus inherits and sustains all things. “Ages” is something

placed in terms of both the Son and God, since God creates them through the Son and his

own word, but it is more associated with Jesus’ eternal enthronement, the age to come,

and, through a synonym, “season,” relates to Jesus’ inauguration of a new age of access

to the heavenly holy of holies through his self-sacrificial act. Creation, therefore,

9
For a more extensive discussion, see Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 122-32.
 294

maintains strong ties with enthronement, Jesus’ role as purifier, a play on “house” with

Jesus’ relation to Moses, and God’s rest, maintaining associations of varying strength to

the entire cosmogonic pattern.

Originator and Completer: The Ritual Event of the Heavenly Day of Atonement

The opening scene (1:2-3; 2:11) emphasizes Jesus’ purifying activities. Jesus

restores and perfects as high priest and sacrificial victim, bringing his own blood into the

heavenly holy of holies as a once-and-for-all expiation for sins. This central ritual event

leads to his enthronement, connects creation with the sanctuary, and allows his followers

also to enter the heavenly sanctuary. This restorative aspect of creation is emphasized

throughout Hebrews, introduced in the prologue and following catena (1:2-3; 2:11),

emphasized in his role as a faithful and merciful high priest (2:17-18; 3:1-7; 4:14-16), to

reach its most extensive development in chapters 5-8, where Jesus is appointed as a high

priest after the order of Melchizedek, comparing and contrasting the acts of the most

efficacious sacrifice of his eternal priesthood to the Levitical priesthood with implications

in terms of covenant and the “true” tent compared to its copy (5:1-10; 6:19-20; 7:1-8:7).

The subsequent chapters depict the central ritual event of Jesus’ activities in the heavenly

holy of holies, becoming the perfected perfecter, mediator, and clearing a way for his

sanctified and perfected followers to enter the sanctuary by his blood (9:7-14, 23-28;

10:1-18). This event is the story of Hebrews; it generates the ancient Near Eastern

scheme in the heavenly realm; it coordinates heavenly space-time.

 295

Originator and Completer: Purifier, Sanctifier, and Perfected Perfecter

The earliest chapters emphasize Jesus’ role as high priest and sacrificial victim in

terms of his mercy, which derives from his identification with his followers. Chapter two

intertwines Jesus’ suffering, his identification with those who suffer, and his exaltation,

culminating in the first mention of him as a merciful and faithful high priest. Heb. 2:5-9

identifies Jesus as the “man” and “son of man” of Ps. 8:4-6, who was made lower than

the angels for “a little while” (LXX) and then crowned with glory, honor, and sovereignty

over all. This statement is made more striking due to the repeated emphasis of Jesus

above the angels in 1:5-2:4. He was crowned with glory and honor because of his

suffering of death (πάθηµα τοῦ θανάτου) so that he could taste death on behalf of

everyone (ὅπως χάριτι θεοῦ ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου). His suffering unto death

substitutes for everyone else’s death, tasting death for all. Inversely, his followers have

“tasted” the heavenly gift and the word of God (6:4-5).

Subsequently, God, the one “for whom and by whom all things” exist,

“completes” (τελειῶσαι) “the originator” (ἀρχηγὸν) “of their salvation through suffering”

(2:10-11). In the first glimpse of the “perfection” language that pervades Hebrews, it is

first Jesus who must be “perfected.”10 I prefer “completed” since the passage plays on

10
For a full discussion of “perfection” terminology in Hebrews and its backgrounds, see David Peterson,
Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the "Epistle to the Hebrews"
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). Although he analyzes each instance of “perfection”
terminology in Hebrews largely in the order here presented, he does not discuss the narrative progression of
perfection. His argument is that “perfection” (τελειοῦν) primarily has a “formal” sense of to complete,
fulfill, and accomplish with Jesus as the “telos,” end or aim of perfection and that “perfection” is
understood in terms of “drawing near to God.” Scholer (Proleptic Priests,185-200) also argues that it is
related to drawing near, but, in refutation of Peterson, argues a cultic meaning of perfection in that
relationship. The general “formal sense” must be interpreted by the context in which it appears, and,
Scholer argues that in Hebrews those instances of the perfecting of Jesus, the failure of the Levitical
priesthood to perfect, and the perfecting of Jesus’ followers is cultic. I also think they are related, but in a
particular way: in the usage of Hebrews, one is perfected and, by being perfected, is enabled to draw near.
This is broadly similar to Philo’s conception relating perfection to a vision of God, or proximity to God,
 296

the terminology of “beginning” and “ending,” since Jesus is the “originator,” who is

“completed.”11 The perfecting of Jesus through suffering, however, is the means by

which God “brings many sons into glory.” Jesus’ suffering perfects, but it also sanctifies,

and the sanctifier and the sanctified have a single origin. Sanctification and perfection, as

will be seen in 10:14, are related, but not equated: one must be sanctified in order to be

perfected.12 Being perfected, moreover, qualifies Jesus for his role as high priest and

qualifies his followers for admission to the heavenly sanctuary.

This language of “originator” and “completer” forms an inclusio over the central

portions of Hebrews, appearing here in 2:10-11 and again in 11:39-12:2. This inclusio

assists in charting the development of perfection throughout the homily. In the first,

Jesus is originator and is perfected, but by the second, he is the originator and the one

who perfects. There is a narrative arc of perfection between these two points, amplifying

Jesus being perfected, how the Levitical sacrifices cannot perfect, delaying and

anticipating the climactic proclamation that the one who is perfected now perfects.

Heb. 5:8-10, which discusses Jesus’ appointment as high priest, also uses

“ending” and “origin” language, making the “origin” the result of “being perfected”:

Although being a Son, he learned obedience from what he suffered, and being
perfected (τελειωθεὶς) became for all who obey him a source (αἴτιος) of eternal
salvation (σωτερίας αἰωνίου), being designated by God high priest after the order
of Melchizedek.

although there is no clear evidence that Hebrews has any direct relationship to Philo. The similarities have
been noted by L.K.K. Dey, The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews
(Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975). Dey, though, sees this as Hebrews reformulating Philo. R. Williamson
(Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 1970)) argues that Hebrews is in no way Philonic.
11
My reading of ἀρχηγός largely agrees with Peterson (Hebrews and Perfection, 57-8), who also draws a
closer connection between 2:10-11 and 5:9 as I do more than the “forerunner” in 6:20, which, although
similar, does not draw into it the “perfection” language.
12
See Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 72.
 297

In this scene, the language of becoming is striking: he learned obedience through

suffering and was perfected.13 This passage also causally links “beginning” and “ending”

language. By “being perfected/completed” Jesus becomes the “source” or “origin”

(αἴτιος) of salvation for those who are obedient, just as he was the “originator” of their

salvation through his perfecting suffering. Just as Jesus learned obedience and became

perfected, so his followers must obey to receive salvation, implying that they too may be

perfected, although Hebrews delays explication of this.

Jesus, being designated high priest, as victim suffers and learns obedience. The

language indicates that attaining perfection is a process.14 His appointment as high priest

is inextricably related to his suffering unto death and his being perfected. The passive

usages indicate God as the agent of this process: as in 2:10-11, God perfects and

appoints the obediently suffering Jesus.15 Having learned obedience through suffering,

being appointed as high priest, and being made perfect are all interrelated and eternally

established. Being perfected qualifies Jesus for his high priestly office.

The relationship between this appointment and Jesus being perfected is reiterated

in 7:28, which, to contrast to the Levitical high priesthood, emphasizes both his eternal

appointment and his eternal perfection: he has been appointed high priest, having been

made perfect forever (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωµένον). In this passage (7:23-28), Jesus’

singular and permanent appointment contrasts with the succession of many earthly high
13
Hebrews strikes an ongoing tension between Jesus’ becoming and the eternality of his roles, wherein his
eternal roles are dependent upon his process of becoming; see Schenk, “A Celebration of the Enthroned
Son,” 469-485; Attridge, Hebrews, 25.
14
Peterson (Hebrews and Perfection, esp. 74-103) also emphasizes the processual aspect of Jesus being
perfected through struggle.
15
Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 97.
 298

priests. His exaltation above the heavens and sinlessness contrasts their sin; thus, he has

no need to offer a sacrifice on his own behalf. He does not have to repeat his sacrifice as

they do; his self-offering was once-for-all. The eternity of the appointment mirrors and

is predicated upon the eternality of being made perfect. His being made perfect precedes

his appointment as the tense sequencing of the verbs makes clear: appoints (καθίστησιν)

is in present tense; having been made perfect (τετελειωµένον) is in the perfect participle.

Having established that Jesus’ suffering has eternally completed him, making him

the “originator” and “source” of salvation (2:10-11; 5:7-9), the homilist argues that the

sacrifices prescribed under the old law do not perfect and at best provide a reminder of

sin. The lack of perfection under the old law necessitates a new priest after the order of

Melchizedek (7:11); the new hope is introduced by which “we draw near to God” (7:19).

The priests’ sacrifices, ablutions, and offerings cannot perfect the conscience, but only

the body (9:9-10). Hebrews is interested in interiority, focusing on judging thoughts and

intentions (4:12-13). Jesus’ sacrifice in the “more perfect tent” sanctifies and “purifies

the conscience” (καθαριεῖ τὴν συνείδησιν) (9:11-14). Again the sacrifices of the old law

failed to perfect “those who draw near” (10:1). Only the eternally perfected high priest

acting in the more perfect tent can perfect his obedient followers.

Jesus’ sacrifice not only perfects him, but also sanctifies and purifies his

followers. Firstly, “we have been sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ,

once-for-all” (ἡγιασµένοι ἐσµὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώµατος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ).

The narrative arc of “origin of salvation,” of “being perfected,” of “making holy,” and of

the failure of the old system to “make perfect,” has been leading to an important last

piece: those who have been purified and sanctified by the offering of Jesus are also
 299

perfected by his once-for-all offering: “For by a single offering he has perfected for all

time those who have been made holy” (µιᾷ γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς

ἁγιαζοµένους) (Heb. 10:14). Jesus was perfected by his own suffering, and that suffering,

conceived as a sacrificial act, sanctifies and perfects. Sanctification and perfection are

not equated, although produced by the same act: Jesus perfects the sanctified ones.

Sanctification precedes perfection; perfection “completes” sanctification. A single act,

once-and-for-all, perfects Jesus and makes him the perfected perfecter.

Jesus’ perfection is never couched in specifically cultic language, although it

appears in relation to his appointment as the high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

It, however, gains cultic overtones in terms of purifying consciences, making holy, and,

finally, perfecting his obedient followers. By the time the reader reaches the next point

of “originator” and “completer” language (11:39-12:2), one has been primed that not

until Jesus’ ultimate sacrificial act could anyone be perfected—not even those who in the

past were obedient and faithful (11:1-11:39).

For all of these having been witness by their faith, did not receive the promise,
since God had foreseen something better for us, so that apart from us they shall
not be made perfect. (11:39)

Past exemplars of faith could not be perfected until the perfected perfecter burst onto the

cosmic stage through the perfecting sacrifice in the more perfect tent of the heavenly holy

of holies—they could not be perfected “apart from us,” but with us they, being attested

by their faith, can be perfected and reach the heavenly homeland (11:13-16; 12:22-24).

Being witnessed in their faith (µαρτυρηθέντες διὰ τῆς πίστεως), they become the great

“cloud of witnesses” (νέφος µαρτύρων), to encourage Jesus’ followers with their example

and to witness the new faithful, who look towards Jesus as the “originator and completer
 300

of our faith” (τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελειωτὴν) (12:2). Having purified

consciences, Jesus perfects faith, and his suffering and the shame of death on a cross

enables his exalted enthronement, as already indicated in 1:2-3.

The Merciful and Faithful High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek

While Jesus’ suffering as sacrifice sanctifies, purifies, and perfects himself and

others, it also helps him identify with his followers, making him a faithful and merciful

high priest. While perfection language has a narrative arc of the perfected perfecter,

Jesus’ role as a merciful mediator is emphasized mostly at the beginning of the homily,

although it resonates throughout, implied in any action as high priest.

One aspect of Jesus being a “little while” lower than the angels is that “the

sanctifier and the sanctified are all from one, which is the reason he is not ashamed to call

them siblings” (2:11). The implications of being from one and siblings are subsequently

explained that Jesus shared all the characteristics of the “sanctified,” partaking of their

flesh and blood (2:14), partaking of a “common resemblance” (παραπλησίως µετέσχεν),

and being made like them in all ways, which may have implications beyond flesh and

blood (2:17), including the ability to be tempted (2:18). Jesus identifies with his

followers in all ways: flesh and blood, suffering, and temptation. His complete

identification with his siblings enables him to become a merciful and faithful high priest

(2:17; cf. 3:2), who expiates their sins: “because he himself has suffered and been

tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted” (2:18). Helping those who have been

tempted as he has, he intercedes as a merciful mediator between humans and God.

It is for this reason that Jesus’ followers can approach the throne of grace:
 301

For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses,
but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us
then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy
and find grace to help in time of need. (4:15-16).

Jesus’ complete identification through temptation, although without sin, allows his

followers to approach the throne, receiving mercy rather than having to fear the judgment

that divides soul and spirit and lays thoughts and intentions bare (4:12-13). It is a

continual mediation between God and Jesus’ followers; Jesus is the “better hope” by

which “we draw near to God” (7:19) and “he is able for all time to save those who draw

near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (7:25).

The “better hope” picks up the “hope” that enters through the curtain of 6:19; this same

enables Jesus’ followers to come into the presence of God (7:19). Jesus’ suffering,

therefore, does not only perfect, but it allows Jesus to identify and act mercifully toward

his followers, giving them the confidence and ability to approach the throne (4:15-16; cf.

3:6); he perpetually intercedes on their behalf so they may draw near to God (7:19, 25).

While 2:17 introduces Jesus’ high priestly mercy, 3:2 adds that he was appointed

to this role. The nature of this appointment is elaborated in 5:1-10, which introduces that

he is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. The implications of this are elaborated in

7:1-8:7. It is a slow revelatory process of Jesus’ high priesthood: from being high priest

(2:17; 4:12), to being appointed as high priest (3:2), to being appointed high priest after

Melchizedek (5:1-10), and what being a high priest after Melchizedek entails (7:1-8:7).

In 3:2, Jesus remains faithful to the one who appointed him (πιστὸν ὄντα τῷ

ποιήσαντι), yet the explanation and necessity of appointing comes in 5:1-10. 5:1-4

explains that every high priest is chosen from among people to act on their behalf. High

priests are merciful, because they identify with and share the people’s weaknesses; thus,
 302

the necessity to offer sacrifice for their own and the people’s sins. What is more,

“someone does not take this honor upon themselves, but is called by God just as Aaron”

(καὶ οὐχ ἑαυτῷ τις λαµβάνει τὴν τιµὴν ἀλλὰ καλούµενος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ καθώσπερ καὶ

Ἀαρών). No one can become high priest on one’s own, but must be selected by God

(Exod. 28:1). As God appointed Aaron, so God also appointed Jesus:

So also Christ did not glorify himself to become high priest but was called by
him:
You are my son, today I have begotten you.
Just as in another place:
You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. (5:5-6)

Jesus’ high priestly appointment relates to his sonship, with the same verse (Ps. 2:7) cited

in the opening catena (1:5). Linking Jesus’ high priesthood with his sonship implies that

his sonship is an adoption dependent upon his appointment as high priest; he became

“son” when he was appointed high priest. Moreover, Jesus is not a Levitical high priest

or a descendent of Aaron, but is appointed “forever” (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) after the order of

Melchizedek. This is the first of many quotations of Ps. 110:4 that will recur in

quotation, paraphrase, and extended discussion throughout the homily, giving for the first

time the name of Jesus’ priesthood and an anticipatory glimpse of its eternal nature.

The subsequent passage emphasizes Jesus’ process of learning obedience through

suffering, and being made perfect to become a source of eternal salvation. It culminates

in “being designated by God (προσαγορευθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀρχιερεὺς) a high priest after

the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:10). Learning obedience, suffering, and being made

perfect are all wrapped up in being designated a high priest after the order of

Melchizedek: all verbs of process. Hebrews supplies the “high” in “high priest,” since

neither Ps. 110:4 nor Gen. 14:18-20 calls Melchizedek a “high priest” but only “priest.”
 303

The legendary figure of Melchizedek first appears in Gen 14.18-20, where as the

king of Salem and priest of God Most High he blesses Abram and God Most High, after

which Abram gives him a tithe. For Hebrews, Melchizedek’s dual status as king and

priest parallels Jesus’ roles as enthroned son and high priest.16 Ps. 110:4 is the next

witness to the Melchizedek tradition: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind,

‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.’” Hebrews quotes and alludes

to this throughout, using it to interpret Gen. 14:18-20 to exalt Jesus’ eternal appointment

above the Levitical priesthood descended from Abraham.

While these are only the passages that the author of Hebrews quotes, alludes to, or

demonstrates any knowledge of, Hebrews participates in a larger tendency in the late

Second Temple period to exalt Melchizedek in a heavenly eschatological setting. While

in the Hebrew Bible and Josephus’s discussion, Melchizedek retains an earthly and

human form,17 in the Qumran document 11Q13 he attains an exalted status:

And the Day of Atonement is the end of the tenth Jubilee, when all the Sons of
Light and the men of the lot of Melchizedek will be atoned for…. For this is the
moment of the year of grace for Melchizedek. And he will, by his strength, judge
the holy ones of God, executing judgment as it is written concerning him in the
Songs of David, “Elohim has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of
the gods he holds judgment.”

Melchizedek becomes the leader of the “Sons of Heaven” and “Sons of Light.” He is the

judge in the divine council “in the midst of the gods.” The rise of Melchizedek is related

to the Day of Atonement, the most distinctively high priestly activity, and he judges in

the divine court, maintaining his functions as king and high priest, but on a cosmic scale.
16
For an analysis of all the sources of the Melchizedek tradition, see Fred L. Horton, The Melchizedek
Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the
Hebrews (Cambridge University Press, 1976).
17
In Pseudo-Eupolemus, frag 1(apud Eusebius, Praep ev. 9.17.1), Melchizedek also retains his human and
less-exalted status.
 304

The Day of Atonement is judgment day or simply “the day.” Especially in apocalyptic

literature, God’s divine court was related to the heavenly temple.18 The text exalts

Melchizedek by calling him El and Elohim.19 Qumran literature commonly ascribed

these names to angelic beings; however, Melchizedek appears to be the highest angel in

the divine council; thus, he is can be called unequivocally “El,” as in the vision of Daniel

7. 11Q13, then, speculates on an exalted, heavenly Melchizedek, providing a glimpse

into the first-century milieu in which Hebrews participates.20

Finally, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice likely portrays an exalted priestly

Melchizedek figure, perhaps with his own Tabernacle, as well as a few fragmentary

possible incidences of the name “Melchizedek” throughout. Even if he cannot be attached

to the Tabernacle directly in the Songs, his appearance, being the only named exalted

being in the text, speaks to his importance in the heavenly sanctuary.

In Hebrews 7, the author exegetes Genesis 14 and Ps. 110:4 in a gezera shawa

method, applies them to Jesus, and like 11Q13 and possibly the Songs of the Sabbath

18
See, for example, Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 3-94. For a short discussion on the heavenly temple in
Hebrews, see Attridge, Hebrews, 222-4.
19
These terms are common in Qumran literature when depicting highly exalted angelic figures, such as in
the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. This is not a full account of the Melchizedek traditions. For further
references, see, for example, Pseudo-Eupolemus, frag 1(apud Eusebius, Praep ev. 9.17.1); Philo, Alleg
Interp 3.79-82; b. Sukkah 52b; Song of Songs Rab. 2.13; PRE 8; 27.3; Num. Rab. 4.8; NHC IX 1
Melchizedek.; Pistis Sophia 1.25-6; 2.86; 2 Enoch; 3 Enoch; Pseudo-Tertullian Adv. Haer. 8.2; Jerome Ep.
Ad Evangelum 73.2-6; Epiphanius Pan. 55.5-9. In 2 Enoch Melchizedek is an exalted and miraculous
figure, serving as an etiology of the priesthood. He is taken off to paradise and the Melchizedek Abraham
meets is either a reincarnation or a copy of the original, heavenly, Melchizedek. Throughout history, there
are a series of Melchizedeks, and the story predicts that one like Melchizedek will come again, but he will
eventually die, showing that the order of Melchizedek is eternal but the individuals within it are not, no
matter how miraculous they are, in contrast to Hebrews application of this role to the resurrected Jesus,
who himself is eternal in the role of Melchizedekian high priest. This same usage of an eternal order or
lineage of high priests also underlies 1 Macc 14.41 in a more limited sense: “And the Jews and their priests
decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise.”
20
Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 194.
 305

Sacrifice creates a highly exalted Melchizedek figure: Jesus himself.21 This further

explanation of Melchizedek in chapter 7 is initiated by Heb. 6:20, which repeats that

Jesus has “become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”22

Although closely related, the homilist never says that Jesus is Melchizedek.

Instead, they have a mutual resemblance of exalted figures. Having already attained

exalted status in 11Q13, in Hebrews Melchizedek resembles the Son of God (7:3), an

epithet given to Jesus throughout the text, making Jesus the model for Melchizedek, and

Jesus is a high priest like Melchizedek.23 Melchizedek’s eternality is based upon his lack

of genealogy: he has no mother or father, no beginning or end. Hebrews relies upon an

interpretive maneuver by which if it is not in the Torah, it does not exist for the sake of

argument.24 Melchizedek’s parents or family of any sort is never mentioned; therefore,

they do not exist. It is because he is without genealogy or beginning or end that he

resembles the Son, and he continues forever as a priest (7:3). It is also because he is

without genealogy that he contrasts with the genealogically-conscious Levitical

priesthood. Jesus, too, lacks the proper Levitical genealogy (7:14).

21
Attridge (Hebrews, 97-103) discusses the antecedents and parallels of the high priest Christology in
Hebrews. Cf. Test. Levi 18.1-14 for its depiction of a highly exalted eschatological high priestly figure.
No text, however, combines the role of high priest and self-sacrifice as Hebrews does. Attridge (Hebrews,
99-100) also discusses the vast literature that depicts angels as priests in the heavenly temple. He argues
that, although the notion of an angelic high priest does not occur before Christian literature, it is a logical
extension from having angelic priests serving in the heavenly sanctuary to identifying one angelic or highly
exalted figure as the high priest among them. Moreover, Attridge notes Philo’s use of the high priest,
which Philo used as a symbol for the Logos (Fug. 109). None of these texts fit the concept in Hebrews of a
self-sacrificing high priest, but do show the background of high priestly speculation. Overall, there is no
one pre-formed type being applied to Jesus, but many models that are combined and altered.
22
Cf. Heb 4.3, which also uses this method. On the exegetical methods employed by Hebrews, see
Attridge, Hebrews, 23-5. The author of Hebrews utilizes both Greek rhetoric and early Jewish midrash.
23
Cf. Heb 1.3, 11, 12; 4.14; 6.6; 10.19.
24
Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 107.
 306

The rhetorical purpose of chapter 7 is to demonstrate that Jesus, as high priest, is

superior to the Levitical priesthood by saying that Levi was in the loins of Abraham when

he paid tithes to Melchizedek (7:4-10). Hebrews points out that Abraham pays tithes to a

priest, Melchizedek, who is “not of their genealogy” (ὁ δὲ µὴ γενεαλογούµενος ἐξ αὐτῶν)

(7:6). Preceding the Levitical genealogy’s existence, the Levites’ ancestor paid tribute to

the ancient priest of Salem, one without genealogy and without their genealogy.

Melchizedek blessed Abraham, and, according to Hebrews, “it is beyond dispute that the

inferior is blessed by the superior” (7:7).25 Levi becomes identified with Abraham

because he is in Abraham’s loins to the degree that, “One might even say that Levi

himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of

his ancestor when Melchizedek met him” (7:9-10). Through this torturous exegesis, the

irony is the one who receives tithes as a priest, paid tithes to another priest, and paying

tithes signals the greater importance of the one who receives the tithes (7:4).

Identifying Melchizedek’s eternal priesthood with Jesus, the author argues that

what is inferior to Melchizedek becomes inferior to Jesus. This association at times is

strong enough to blur the distinction between the two figures: “Here tithes are received

by mortal men; there, by one of whom it is testified that he lives” (7:8). Who is the “one

of whom it is testified that he lives”? Melchizedek is the one who receives tithes, and

because he has no beginning or end, “he lives.” Or because Jesus has been resurrected,

exalted, and perfected, “he lives.”26 Melchizedek is the nearest antecedent, yet the shift

25
The homilist noticeably omits that Melchizedek also blesses God Most High.
26
Cf. Heb 7.23-5; see also Rev. 1.17-8, in which Jesus appears as the glory of God from Ezekiel 1 and says
to John of Patmos, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for
evermore, and I have the keys to Death and Hades.”
 307

to formulaic language suggests a more nuanced meaning of both Melchizedek and Jesus

or Jesus as Melchizedek. The ambiguous language, while immediately referring to

Melchizedek, suggests a concurrent identification with Jesus, stressing the perpetual life

of Jesus’ and Melchizedek’s eternal priestly order that contrasts the Levitical order.27

Having established Melchizedek’s precedence to Levi chronologically and

eternally, the homilist argues that just as Melchizedek precedes Levi, he will succeed him

through Jesus. This is part of the arc of perfection, the part in which the Levitical

priesthood perfected nothing, necessitating the rise of a different priesthood: “Now if

perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people

received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise

after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?” (Heb.

7:11).28 This, as in the discussion of the more perfect tent, becomes enmeshed in the

necessity for a new law (7:12): the law, priesthood, and sanctuary form a symbolic

system, so that a shift in one calls for a shift in the other two.

Like Melchizedek, Jesus is not of Levitical genealogy (7:6, 14). The Levitical

priesthood cannot perfect in a sacrificial system carried out in the earthly temple

predicated upon the law, necessitating a new priesthood without genealogy and a

different sanctuary that is eternal. Jesus’ priestly appointment, then, is not based upon

genealogy, but upon his eternality and resemblance to Melchizedek: “This becomes even

more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become

27
Hebrews often employs ambiguous and enigmatic language and then exploits that ambiguity. For other
uses and exploitations of ambiguous language, see Hebrews 2.5-9; 2.10-18; 3.1-6. In the passage under
consideration, although the nearest antecedent is Melchizedek, the language appears to also apply to Jesus,
or foreshadow a similar discussion about Jesus in Hebrews 7.23-5. Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 196, 210.
28
Heb. 8:7 presents a similar argument vis-à-vis the law.
 308

a high priest, not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent but by the

power of an indestructible life” (Heb. 7:15-16). The legal requirement is not only

bypassed because Melchizedek is superior to Levi, but also because “the law made

nothing perfect” (Heb. 7:19a), whereas through the Melchizedekian high priest, “a better

hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God” (Heb. 7:19b).

Hebrews argues this through number and eternality:

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death
from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he
continues forever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw
near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
(Heb. 7:23-25)

In this argument Hebrews sidesteps the multiple divine proclamations that the Aaronic

priesthood is eternal (Exod. 29:9; 40:15; Num. 25:13; Deut. 18:5). As Exod. 40:15 LXX

emphatically states, God establishes them as an “eternal priesthood throughout their

generations” (ἱερατείας εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα εἰς τὰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν). Nonetheless, the Levitical

priesthood can only maintain its eternality through its generations, while Jesus’

appointment is one person forever. An eternal priesthood, resembling Melchizedek,

Jesus lives forever so that he can make continual intercession.

An eternal priesthood necessitates a special kind of sacrifice that perfects in a way

the Levitical offerings could not. Again, the text anticipates something (7:26-27) that

will be elaborated later (9:6-10, 15-28; 10:1-4, 10-25):

For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless,
unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need,
like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for
those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself. (Heb.
7:26-27)
 309

The author picks up on a conceptual seed planted in 5:3: the high priest, in the Day of

Atonement ceremony, must offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as the people’s. In

5:3, this was noted positively, since the high priest, sharing in human weakness, can

identify with the people and thereby be merciful. Jesus, however, is a merciful high

priest who identifies with human weakness, but never sinned. Jesus is holy, blameless,

unstained, separate from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. Although merciful and

identifying with his followers, he is separated from sin in absolute terms. Jesus,

therefore, unlike the Aaronic high priests does not need to offer sacrifice for his own sins

and then for the people as directed in Leviticus 16. He is above the heavens, the same

heavens that will be rolled up and destroyed—placing the heavenly temple and throne

above these heavens in the unshakable realm. This sacrifice takes place in the heavenly

holy of holies. The placement plays a necessary role in its efficacy.

The nature of Jesus’ sacrifice is finally revealed. It has been anticipated for

several chapters in the language of Jesus’ suffering and his being appointed as a high

priest, but his suffering unto death, tasting death on behalf of all, has finally been placed

in sacrificial language as a sin-purging, perfecting sacrifice, “when he offered himself

up” (ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας) (7:27). Here the high priesthood and the efficacious suffering

become fused into one: Jesus, as high priest, offers himself, as sacrificial victim, and he

did this “once and for all” (ἐφάπαξ) (7:27; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10). The singular eternal

priest of the eternal order enacted a single, once and for all, sacrifice of himself.

This central ritual event drives the narrative and ties into the entire cosmogonic

scheme. Just as purification and enthronement were causally related in Heb. 1:2-3, this

passage immediately transitions into Jesus’ enthronement and his actions in the “true
 310

tent,” the heavenly sanctuary. It is an event in the most holy space of the heavenly

sanctuary, to inaugurate a new most holy time of the age to come, cast in terms of the

most holy ritual of the Day of Atonement. Jesus’ high priestly Day of Atonement

offering was anticipated in 5:1-4, but just briefly mentioned only to be picked up chapters

later, as is the homily’s style. 6:19-20, the line that sets off the elaboration of the nature

of the Melchizedekian priesthood, says that Jesus “enters into the innermost place behind

the veil, where Jesus as entered as a forerunner on our behalf” (εἰσερχοµένην εἰς τὸ

ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσµατος, ὅπου πρόδροµος ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν εἰσῆλθεν Ἰησοῦς). Entering is

doubly emphasized and is the cultic term used for the high priestly activities on the Day

of Atonement. The only person who can “enter” through the veil into the innermost place

is the high priest on the Day of Atonement. This dropped verse bears fruit in later

chapters, receiving a momentary glimpse in 7:27, but fully explored in chapters 9 and 10.

Chapter 9 describes the two “tents” of the Tabernacle. Having given a brief

description in 9:1-5, the author explains that the priests “continually” enter the outer tent

to perform their cultic duties, while only the high priest enters the inner tent once a year,

“and not without taking blood which he offers from himself and for the errors of the

people” (9:7). This description elaborates the brief discussion at the end of chapter 7.

None of these offerings, as noted, perfect the conscience, but only regulate the body. In

Klawans’s terms, Hebrews argues that the Day of Atonement has only concerned ritual

and not moral purity. The ritual act in the heavenly “inner tent” contrasts this:

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come
through a better and more perfect tent not made by hands—that is, not of this
creation (τοῦτ΄ἔστιν οὐ ταύτης τπης κτίσεως)—he entered once and for all into the
most holy place (τὰ ἅγια) not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own
blood to secure eternal redemption. (9:11-12)
 311

The following is an argument from minor to major that if animal sacrifices sanctify and

purify the flesh, how much more will the unblemished blood of Christ purify the

conscience? The juxtaposition of 9:6-10 and 9:11-14 is between earthly and heavenly,

between body and conscience: the priests and high priests of the earthly tent in the

current season (represented by the outer tent) purify the body, while Jesus as high priest

in the heavenly tent represented by the holy of holies as implicitly the age to come and

concurrently the “good things that have come,” which demonstrates that the coming age

of the heavenly holy of holies is breaking into the current season of the outer tent, offers

his own blood that purifies the conscience, purifying “moral impurity.”

This shedding of blood seals a new covenant (9:15-22), after which the author

reiterates and clarifies the points already made in the tent metaphor. The earthly tent, as

learned from 8:5, is a shadow of heavenly realities. The “true tent” (8:2) is the heavenly,

greater, and more perfect tent; it is not made with hands and exists beyond this creation

(9:11) in the unshakable realm. Likewise, the earthly rites are also copies of heavenly

rites and purify things that are copies of the heavenly things: “Thus it was necessary for

the copies of heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things

themselves with better sacrifices than these” (9:23). This picks up on one of the more

significant aspects of the Day of Atonement: it is not just about purging the sin of the

sinner, but purging the taint of sin from the sanctuary itself. Yet the maintenance of

correspondence of heavenly true realities and their earthly shadows has created a

conundrum: why does the heavenly sanctuary need to be purified?

The author does not reflect on this, but while reiterating the consequences of Jesus

going into the true tent claims that the tent is not just heavenly, but is heaven itself.
 312

For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy (ἀντίτυπα
τῶν ἀληθινῶν) of the true one, but into heaven itself (εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν), now
to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. (Heb. 9:24)

The author reiterates that the heavenly sanctuary is not made with hands like the earthly

sanctuary (9:11), but similar to saying it is beyond this creation, it is heaven itself. This

complete equation of heaven with the sanctuary is significant. The sanctuary, the inner

tent, is heaven itself.29 Heaven is a sanctuary. Not only is the sanctuary made heavenly

but the heaven is “templized.” Additionally, this heaven-as-true-tent is to be equated

with the other heavenly language throughout Hebrews: the heavenly homeland and city,

which is also heavenly Sabbath rest. The call to “enter” the sanctuary, therefore, in the

subsequent chapter, which is equivalent to entering God’s rest, is to enter heaven itself.

Finally, Jesus’ continual intercessory role, as emphasized in 4:14-16 and 7:25, is

reiterated: Jesus appears before God on “our” behalf.

In its alternating movement between earthly and heavenly, earthly priests and

heavenly high priest, the text continues to contrast their ritual activities:

Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enter the Holy Place
yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly
since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once and for all at
the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (9:25-6)

Only needing to do this once, the text notes that when Jesus reappears, he will not need to

purify from sin again, but take those who are eagerly awaiting him. Repetition, for

Hebrews, signals a lack of perfection as the continued text makes clear (10:1-4). The text

notes that the earthly high priests did not use their own blood—a problematic point for

Hebrews. The text emphasizes that animal sacrifices cannot take away sins (10:4), but

29
See Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 173-5. Some argue, however, that this is a synecdoche in
which the whole (heaven) represents the part (the tent); e.g., L.D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its
Background of Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 24-33.
 313

rather serve as a reminder of sin (10:1), only purifying the body (9:10). Yet the high

priests could not, like Jesus, offer themselves, since they were not without blemish; thus,

they had to purify for their own sins and only an unblemished sacrifice can be

efficacious. So, many priests with repeated yearly animal sacrifices contrasts to the once-

for-all self-offering of one priest, which occurs at the end of the age.

Jesus’ sacrifice purifies the conscience (9:11-14) and sanctifies once-for-all

(10:10). The once-for-all becomes repetitive, punctuating the text to emphasize the many

of the earthly high priests and the one of the heavenly high priest (7:27; 9:12, 26, 28;

10:10; cf. 10:12, 14). Hebrews repeatedly makes the point that the high priests repeated

offerings do not take away sins (10:11; cf. 9:9-10; 10:1-4) compared to Christ’s single

sacrifice (10:12), something underscored in the tenses: Jesus’ entering uses the aorist

εἰσῆλθεν (9:11-12, 24), emphasizing the action’s unrepeatability.30 As in Heb. 1:2 and as

in 8:1, his self-sacrifice, purifying sins and oddly the heavenly sanctuary, leads to his

enthronement, by which his enemies would be subjected to him (10:13; cf. 2:1-9).

As Jesus’ sacrifice and enthronement next to God make him a merciful high priest

(4:14-16) who continually intercedes for “us” (7:25), he now perfects (10:14), and those

who have been perfected also may enter the sanctuary, moving past the veil of his flesh,

since both body and mind have been purified (10:19-25). The veil picks up a subtle hint

dropped in 6:19-20 and only realized in 10:19-25: Jesus’ actions in the heavenly

sanctuary beyond the veil is a prelude that enables his followers to enter the heavenly

sanctuary beyond the veil. Jesus the heavenly high priest is a “forerunner” (πρόδροµος).

30
Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 164.
 314

Jesus’ high priesthood interacts with many themes—creation (1:2-3),

enthronement (1:2-3; 4:14-16; 8:1; 10:12-13), the sanctuary (esp. 8:1-7; 9:7-14, 23-28;

10:1-25)—and does so in anticipations, developments, and echoes in a fugue-like

performance. Perfection takes a specific arc, emphasizing first that Jesus’ suffering

perfects him, interwoven with the lack of perfection of the levitical priesthood as

predicated by the law that enables it, delaying and finally revealing that Jesus’ suffering

is a sacrificial action that sanctifies and perfects those obedient to him. While Jesus’

purifying actions are mentioned from the start (1:2-3), he is called a high priest quite

early (2:17-18), emphasizing his mercy and faithfulness (2:17-28; 3:2; 4:14-16).

This is where another technique of Hebrews emerges: mentioning succinct

statements that are elaborated later. In Heb. 3:2 Jesus’ priestly appointment is mentioned,

but only picked up in 5:1-10. At that point, the specifics of being appointed after order of

Melchizedek is added, but only elaborated in 7:1-8:7, where his eternal priesthood of one

is contrasted with the genealogical priesthood of successively many. That the high priest

must atone for himself is dropped in 5:1-4 without much comment, but becomes

important starting in chapter 9. Moreover, Jesus’ actions going behind the curtain may be

implied by him being a high priest, but is not explicitly mentioned until 6:19-20, where it

is again not discussed, but picked up again in the discussion of the heavenly tent, or the

tent which is heaven (9:7-14, 23-28; 10:1-4, 10-25), which, in the last passage, finally

picks up a subtle hint from 6:19-20, Jesus’ actions in the heavenly sanctuary not only

purifies, sanctifies, and perfects, but enables his followers to also enter the sanctuary

where he has gone as a forerunner on our behalf. As was true of the ritual event of the

Day of Atonement in Leviticus and the liturgical series in the Songs of the Sabbath
 315

Sacrifice, this event coordinates sacred time and space, configuring it in a heavenly

pattern that makes heaven a sanctuary and sacred time the coming age of access to that

sanctuary when “we” can, like a high priest, enter the heavenly holy of holies.

Conclusion

While creation is rare in the New Testament, it extends throughout Hebrews,

becoming intricately related to Jesus’ purification activities that sustain creation,

establishing a new age, and that purify, sanctify, and perfect his followers. This occurs

by Jesus’ perfect and perfecting self-sacrifice as high priest and sacrificial victim in the

heavenly holy of holies. Jesus, as Son, inherits and sustains all things. He is the means

by which God creates the world. Yet all things are for and from God; God creates the

unshakable heavenly realm: the heavenly tent and city. Jesus creates a new age; he is

both creator and destroyer of the heavens and the earth; he is the originator and finisher

of faith. Having restored creation by his purifying activities, been appointed high priest

after the order of Melchizedek, and been enthroned and adopted as Son, he continually

acts as a merciful and faithful high priest by whom his followers can approach God.

Jesus’ heavenly Day of Atonement ceremony activates the pattern of creation/restoration,

enthronement, rest, and the sanctuary. By his high priestly appointment, he is perfected

and purifies, sanctifies, and perfects, giving access to God; by going behind the curtain to

enact this sacrifice, he enables his followers to enter the heavenly holy of holies; by his

enthronement, his enables his followers to approach the throne.

 316

Chapter 10: The Enthronement of the Son

In addition to perfecting himself and his followers, Jesus’ self-sacrifice leads to

his enthronement and enables his followers’ to draw near to the throne. Enthronement is

a bright thread interweaving itself throughout the entire homily. Whether relating to

creation, rest, or the sanctuary, enthronement recalls Jesus’ acts of purification, in which

he expiates sins, perfects, and ushers in a new age of access to the heavenly realm.

Hebrews 1 causally relates creation to the exalted enthronement of the Son above the

ministering angels (1:3-4; 8-9). Within the sanctuary the enthroned Son acts as the

merciful high priest who has compassion for and identifies with his followers, exhorting

them to approach the throne just after exhorting them to enter Sabbath rest (4:14-16).

The throne is an important part of the high priestly actions in the “true tent” (8:1-2) and

appears without emphasis as the mercy seat (9:5). In 10:12-13, the high priestly sacrifice

again leads to enthronement, while transitioning into the sanctuary, which the auditors

access by means of Jesus’ self-sacrifice. It finally reemerges in 12:2 in the culmination

of the hall of faith chapter, where Jesus acts as originator and completer of faith in terms

of suffering on the cross, after which he is exalted and enthroned. The Son is enthroned

because of his role in sustaining and creating (1:3-4, 8-9) and his purifying high priestly

actions (1:3-4; 4:14-16; 8:1-2; 10:12-13; cf. 12:2). The throne intersects with Sabbath

rest (4:14-16), and necessarily exists in the sanctuary (8:1-2; 9:5; 10:12-13).
 317

Enthronement in Second Temple Literature

God’s enthronement as a king demonstrates his sovereignty over all things.

Throne imagery pervades the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature. The priestly

tradition portrays God enthroned as a dense cloud within the sanctuary (Exod. 24; 25:10-

22; 40:34-38; 1 Kings 8:10-12; 2 Chronicles 6-7), but the most vivid imagery appears in

the throne visions in Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, 1 Enoch 14:8-15:1, and Dan. 7:9-14, which share

imagery with Exodus 24. God’s throne became so significant that a vision of it became

the goal of the visionary as early as Song 12 in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.

A significant feature of Second Temple literature is the enthronement of a second

figure next to God. It appears in sources of wide geographical variation from Palestine to

Egypt within devotional hymns, apocalyptic documents, and even a play. The meaning

of this enthronement may differ from document to document, but the imagery is stunning

nonetheless and demonstrates a highly exalted status of the second figure.

In Solomon’s enthronement ceremony in 2 Chron. 29:20-23, the people bow

before and worship both God and the king—a single verb with two objects—as Solomon

sits on the “throne of YHWH as king” (‫)וישב שלמה על כסא יהוה למלך‬. Solomon sitting next

to god and his seat being on God’s throne is a most striking image of a human being

exalted and enthroned. It suggests a conception of the king as God or the highly exalted

representative of God on earth who, as such, is treated as divine. The Greek text,

however, reins in these tendencies, translating this line as Solomon sitting on David’s

throne (καὶ ἐκάθισεν σαλωµων ἐπὶ θρόνου δαυιδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ).

Daniel 7 and 11Q13 do not feature enthronement per se, but the exaltation of a

second figure next to God: a figure like a son of man and Melchizedek respectively.
 318

Neither text states that the figure sits. Daniel 7, however, mentions multiple thrones and

says that the son of man is presented before the Ancient of Days, who is seated on a

throne , and given dominion, glory, and sovereignty, and, with this authority, “all

peoples, nations, and languages should serve him” (Dan. 7:14). His dominion and reign

are eternal. Interpreting Ps. 82:1, Melchizedek in 11Q13 judges in the divine council on

the Day of Atonement; he is God (‫ )אלהים‬among the gods (‫)בקרב אלהים‬.

The Parables of Enoch recall Daniel 7 to some extent. After the Lord of Spirits

sits on his throne, a second figure called the Chosen One or Son of Man, who turns out to

be Enoch himself, sits on the throne of God in heaven and all the rulers of the earth

worship him, praying and petitioning to him (1 Enoch 51:3; 61:6-62:16; 69:26-29).

An Orphic fragment preserved by Aristobulus in turn preserved by Eusebius of

Caesarea (E.H. 7.32.16-18) has two recensions, both of which list divine attributes. In

the short form, these refer to God, but in the long it may refer to either Abraham or

Moses—the “offshoot” of the “Chaldeans” could be Abraham, but much of the text

resembles Moses. After depicting Abraham/Moses riding through the air in spirit and

having a mighty birth, “he after this is established in the great heaven on a golden

throne.” His body is of immense size and powerful—making mountains tremble—and

“he is entirely heavenly.” He also “brings everything to completion on earth.”1 In the

short version, the antecedent for “he” is God; in the long, the referent is ambiguous,

allowing the reader to think it is God or the apotheosis of Abraham/Moses. The

“offshoot” is the closest antecedent for the pronoun and would follow more readily from

the statement, “Yes, he after this is established in the great heaven on a golden throne,”

1
Trans. A. Yarbro Collins, "Aristobulus," Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday,
1985) 2 vols. 831-42.
 319

meaning, after his ascent, the hero became divinized. In this reading, Abraham/Moses

receives a throne, immense size, and great power.2

In Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge, a play written in the second to first centuries

BCE in Alexandria, Moses tells his father-in-law a dream he had in which he saw a

throne on Sinai that was so enormous that it touched the clouds. On it sat human-like

figure, who gave his crown, scepter, and throne to Moses, after which all the stars bowed

down to him and marched before him as an army does for inspection (Exagoge 62-82).

Afterwards, Moses’ father-in-law interprets the dream, saying that Moses will cause a

mighty throne to arise, he will rule, and he will have the ability to see past, present, and

future. Moses’ enthronement as God interprets the biblical verse where God tells Moses

he will be as God to Pharaoh (Exod. 4:16; 7:1). It is possible that the relationship is

analogical: as God is to the universe, so Moses will be to Israel, to Pharaoh, or the earth,

but the imagery of Moses enthroned and worshiped as God is bold nonetheless.

Finally, in the “self-glorification” (4Q491c 1 6-8) hymn from Qumran a human

claims to be counted among and to sit (‫ )ישבתי‬among the “gods.” (“I sit in […] in the

heavens, and there is no […]… I am counted among the gods, and my dwelling is in the

holy congregation”). The phrase can be rendered, “I reside,” but to approximate “sitting”

language in a heavenly setting is an extraordinary claim for an human figure to make. It

indicates at least transformation into an exalted status if not apotheosis.

2
Aristobulus’ purpose is to establish Hellenic dependence upon Moses. Aristobulus claims that
Pythagorus, Socrates, and Plato “take great care to follow him [Moses] in all respects. They copy him
when they say that they hear the voice of God, when they contemplate the arrangement of the universe, so
carefully made and so unceasingly held together by God.” Following Moses, Orpheus states God is one
and no one sees him. Moses, as the lawgiver with exclusive access to God, is a cultural progenitor of other
cultures. Moreover, Moses is more than a lawgiver in the context of Aristobulus’ remarks. He delineates
the arrangement of the universe, the order of nature, and the voice of God, upon which Pythagorus,
Socrates, Plato, and Orpheus, philosophers and poets alike depend. Cf. Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and
Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998) 247-8.
 320

God sharing a throne with a second figure is a significant feature, emerging in

various strands of ancient Jewish literature in Chronicles, 1 Enoch, at Qumran in an

apocalyptic pesher (11Q13) and a devotional hymn (4Q491c), a play (Exogoge), and an

Orphic hymn. They are exalted to various degrees, with some more literal and some

more metaphorical or at least ambiguous. Solomon’s enthronement on God’s throne and

being worshiped alongside God creates a shared identification between the king and God.

Whether Solomon is being portrayed as divine or God as kingly is elided as they are

identified, much like Jesus as Lamb and God are addressed singularly and placed on a

single throne in Rev. 22:1-2. Enoch and Melchizedek are portrayed eschatologically,

much like the second figure in Daniel, but they are all given sovereignty and ability to

judge, while the figure in Daniel and Enoch receive worship. Moses is more

metaphorical, but the metaphor is bold and vivid where Moses is enthroned as God with

the stars worshiping him. The ensuing interpretation by his father-in-law indicates this as

an imaginative rendering of Moses being “a god to pharaoh,” but the earlier verse and its

later imaginative re-rendering for the stage involve bringing Moses and God into a

relationship of shared identification: Moses is as God.

Jesus’ Enthronement in Hebrews and the New Testament

This far-reaching interest in the enthronement of a second figure gives partial

context for Jesus’ exaltation and enthronement in the New Testament. Like these

figures—Solomon, the Son of Man, the Elect One/Enoch, Melchizedek, Moses—often

with reference to Psalm 110, Jesus is enthroned at God’s right hand and given

sovereignty, but unlike these other figures his enthronement is predicated upon suffering.
 321

There is a consistent pattern of Jesus’ suffering, death, resurrection, ascension to heaven,

and enthronement sitting at the right hand of God throughout the texts, usually in a

passive sense. Acts provides the most involved discussion of this pattern (Acts 1:9-11;

2:32-6; 5:30-31; 7:55-6), although 7:55-56, which involves the most pathos with the

stoning of Stephen, has Jesus standing at the right hand of God.3 Finally, God and Jesus

as the Lamb share a throne in Rev. 22:1-2 as the two receive the actions of the same verb

throughout the text.

God’s throne and Jesus’ enthronement at God’s right hand play a key role in

Jesus’ mediation between God and humans, allowing humans to approach the throne with

confidence (Heb. 4:14-16). Firstly, though, suffering and purification lead to his

enthronement. In addition to being perfected, Jesus’ suffering and death leads to his

exaltation and enthronement. In the opening scene, the Son, “having made purification

for sins, sat at the right hand of the Great One on high” (1:3). This may be chronological

sequencing—Jesus sits at the right hand of God after he makes purification for sins—but,

more likely, they are causally linked—Jesus sits at the right hand of God because he

made purification for sins. Although not using the language of enthronement and

sacrifice, 2:1-11 causally relates Jesus’ suffering and death to his exaltation and

sovereignty: “through the suffering of death, he was crowned with glory and honor (διὰ

τὸ πάθηµα τοῦ θανάτου δόξῃ καὶ τιµῇ ἐστεφανωµένον)” (2:9). Jesus’ coronation, an

element of enthronement, with glory and honor results from his suffering unto death.

Jesus’ enthronement sets the tone for the entire opening scene, where Jesus as Son

is exalted above the angels (1:5-7) by his throne (1:8-9) and his role in creation and

3
Mark 16:19, which is part of the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is not in the earliest manuscripts, but
attests to the prevalence of the pattern as time went on; cf. Luke 24:51-2.
 322

destruction (1:10-12) and his overall sovereignty (1:13). The passage interweaves

creation and enthronement in terms of overall exaltation. 1:8 is most crucial here:

And to the son,

“Your throne, God, is from age to age
And the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.”

It is also possible that this says, “God is your throne from age to age” (ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς

εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος). If the first way, God addresses Jesus as God, whose throne has

been established forever; if the second, God is the throne forever. Jesus enthroned as

God makes more sense than Jesus enthroned upon God, particularly since Hebrews

consistently shows Jesus as at God’s right hand. Most importantly, God addresses this

speech from Ps. 45:6-7 to Jesus, establishing his enthronement forever so that he can

continually make intercession in a chapter that deftly introduces (1:1-4) and then

elaborates on the relationship between exaltation, enthronement, and creation (1:5-13).

Heb 8:1-2 juxtaposes Jesus’ once-and-for-all sacrifice with his enthronement in a

passage reminiscent of the prologue. Both places connect purification of sins with

enthronement and depict that enthronement very similarly: “we have such a high priest,

who sat at the right hand of the throne of the Great One in the heavens (ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ

τοῦ θρόνου τῆς µεγαλωσύνης ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς), a minister of the most holy (τῶν ἁγίων) and

the true tent established by the Lord and not by humans” (8:1-2). This brief passage

echoes the prologue where, “having made purification for sins, he sat on the right hand of

the Great One on high” (8:3). Both use the same verb in the same tense (ἐκάθισεν), both

say it is at the right hand (ἐν δεξιᾷ) of the “Great One” (τῆς µεγαλωσύνης), which is an

epithet for God used in Hebrews only in these two spots, and the dative “in the heavens”

(ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) from 8:1 mirrors the dative “on high” (ἐν ὑψηλοῖς) from 1:3. Other than
 323

changing “on high” to “in the heavens,” the only difference is the insertion of the word,

“throne.” These short lines juxtapose and interlace Jesus’ enthronement next to God with

his sacrifice (7:26-28) and his ongoing ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, the true tent

(8:2-5), reiterating and elaborating the sets of relationships established in the prologue.

Heb. 10:12 makes a similar move: “But when this one offered a single sacrifice

for sins for all time he sat at the right hand of God, then waiting until his enemies would

be set as a footstool for his feet” (10:12-13). Jesus’ self-offering leads to his

enthronement and the subjection of his enemies, bringing together the themes from 1:3

and 8:1-3, connecting purification of sins to enthronement, and 2:1-11, connecting

suffering and exaltation above all things to the subjection of all things to him. Like 8:1-3,

this leads to a discussion of the sanctuary and the auditors’ ability to enter it.

Finally, 12:2 also connects Jesus’ suffering, as the originator and finisher of faith,

to his enthronement at the right hand of God (ἐν δεξιᾷ τε τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ κεκάθικεν).

Like 1:3, 8:3, and 10:12, he sits, although the tense has shifted from the aorist to the

perfect, at the right hand. Like 8:3, the word “throne” is reintroduced, while “God” used

from 10:12 has replaced the “Great One” from 1:3 and 8:3. It follows the overall pattern

of suffering leading to exaltation and enthronement. In the sequence of the sentence,

Jesus suffers death on the cross, despises the shame of it, and is seated at the right hand of

the throne of God, clearly connecting these three aspects.

Overall, Hebrews regularly speaks of Jesus’ enthronement next to God’s throne

subsequent to and resulting from his purification of sins and suffering unto death, using

consistent imagery and terms in slightly variant combinations that resemble the overall

pattern found throughout the texts in the New Testament, although most prominent in
 324

Acts (1:9-11; 2:32-6; 5:30-31; 7:55-6), of humiliation, suffering, and death juxtaposed or

causally related to ascension, exaltation and enthronement.

Accessing the Throne

Hebrews simultaneously relates Jesus’ enthronement with his followers’ ability to

access the throne, something less emphasized in the other New Testament sources. This

access derives from Jesus’ role as the perfected perfecter: he perfects others so that they

may follow him, the forerunner, into the heavenly sanctuary. This further implication of

Jesus’ suffering, ascension, exaltation, and enthronement can be found in Heb. 4:14-16:

And so having a great high priest who, having passed through the heavens, Jesus
the son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest
who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all
things just as we have but without sin. And so let us draw near with confidence to
the throne of grace, so that we shall have mercy and find grace in a time of help.

This passage presents Jesus’ ascension most clearly, something at best implied in other

passages of Jesus’ exaltation and enthronement, having “passed through the heavens,” to

a location above the heavens (7:26), where his atoning actions in the heavenly sanctuary

and his heavenly enthronement take place. The exhortation to draw near to the throne is

predicated upon and parallels Jesus’ own movement: as he passed through the heavens

and was enthroned next to God, so the hearers are exhorted to draw near to the throne of

grace into God’s own presence in the heavenly holy of holies.4

This exhortation to draw near to the throne contrasts the exclusivity of the throne

in the Hebrew Bible. At first only Moses could approach God (Exod. 24:1-2) and enter

the dark cloud where God was (24:15-18). Furthermore, only Moses met with God above

4
See Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 106-7.
 325

the cherub throne (25:21-22). Afterwards, only the high priest could approach the

throne—the mercy seat—on the Day of Atonement when he brought blood into the holy

of holies to purge the sanctuary and the people (Leviticus 16:2, 13-15; cf. Exod. 28:35,

43). Access is restricted to once a year because otherwise God would strike Aaron down

(Lev. 16:2). As such, it is a highly restricted, sacred, and fearful place. In Hebrews,

however, the homilist enjoins the hearers, who have been purified by the heavenly high

priest Jesus (9:11-14), to approach the throne and without fear. They are exhorted to do

what had previously been restricted to Moses and Aaron, the high priest, and then only on

the Day of Atonement, when the most sacred time intersected the most sacred space.

Jesus’ atonement and identification with his followers as the merciful high priest

are linked to one’s ability to approach the throne without fear and with confidence.

Confidence or παρρησίας originally relates to bold speech in the political assembly, but

takes on a variety of meanings, including boldness given by and towards God; here, the

assurance of faith given by Jesus.5 Nonetheless, this boldness without fear is striking

given the history of throne visions in Jewish literature.

Fear and trembling are the typical responses to being in proximity to God on this

throne. In Genesis, Abraham falls on his face when God speaks to him (Gen. 17:3, 17).

It is the response of the entire people (Lev. 9:24; Num 16:22, 45; Deut. 9:19; Josh. 7:6;

cf. Josh. 5:14) before the Glory of the LORD (Num. 20:6). Ezekiel distinctively sets the

pattern; he continually falls on his face or faints during his visions of God, and has to be

set up again, sometimes by his hair (1:29-2:2; 3:23-24; 9:8; 11:13; 43:3-5; 44:4).6 Enoch

5
See e.g., Job 22:23-27; 27:9-10; Josephus, Ant. 2.52, 131; 5.28; Philo, Quis rer. 5-29; 1 En. 47:2-4; 48:8;
51:5; 61:1-13; 62:3-5; 63:1-12; 69:26; 104:1-5; 4 Ezra 7:87, 98-101; Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 109-111.
6
I am also reminded of how Dante continually passes out in his journey through the Inferno.
 326

also falls on his face in fear and trembling when he approaches God’s throne (1 En.

14:13-14). He later fearfully falls on his face and even wets himself (1 En. 60:3). Daniel

does the same thing (Dan. 8:17-18; cf. 10:9-10). The importance of prostrating oneself

before God in fear and trembling persists into the New Testament (Matt. 17:6-7; Rev.

1:17). These fearful prostrations, however, are overcome, usually with reassuring words

from an interpreting angel or God, lifting the human figure up and infusing that figure

with confidence—itself a pattern of humiliation and exaltation. Hebrews, however,

bypasses this initial fear and trembling in God’s presence, moving directly to confidence.

In the scenes of approaching the throne and entering the sanctuary fear can be

bypassed (4:16; 10:19) through confidence (3:6, 14; 4:16; 10:19, 35; cf. 11:1). There is a

place for fear, especially if one falls away in faithless disobedience; indeed, “it is a

fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31). Even for the obedient,

there is “godly fear,” expressed in awe and reverence in the service of God, through Jesus

(5:7), Noah (11:7), and Jesus’ followers (12:28). Nonetheless, the confidence and lack of

fear in approaching God is predicated upon one’s obedience and Jesus as mediator at the

right-hand of God. He is the “better hope through which we draw near to God” (7:21; cf.

7:25). Likewise, in 10:12-13 Jesus’ enthronement after his purifying activities not only

perfects his followers, but gives access to the heavenly sanctuary, where they “have

confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus” and draw near “in full assurance

of faith,” and “hold fast the confession” (10:19, 22, 23). This contrasts those at Sinai,

including Moses, who trembled with fear (12:18-22).

It is, finally, an act of imitation, imitatio Christi, in 12:2, where Jesus’ suffering

and shameful death on the cross leads to his enthronement as the prime exemplum of
 327

faith to follow. At the culmination of the hall of faith section, the author exhorts the

hearers to “run with perseverance the race set before us” (12:1), looking at Jesus as the

originator and completer of faith (12:2), who endured death and was enthroned. They are

to look to him so that they may also endure suffering and receive a greater reward (12:3-

17).

Conclusion

Just as Jesus’ suffering and death leads to his own exaltation and enthronement, it

also enables his followers to approach the throne and enter the sanctuary with confidence

and without fear. Jesus’ own enthronement shows strong intratextual links with

consistent language that appears in varying arrangements. Jesus’ enthronement and its

significance for his followers resonates strongly in Hebrews and, as such, becomes

associated with his role in creation (1:3-4; 1:8-9), establishing his throne for ever (1:8-9).

It is interlaced with his suffering and acts of purification (1:2-3; 8:1-3; 10:12-13; 12:2),

often with his acts within the heavenly sanctuary leading to his enthronement and then

further meditation in the sanctuary (8:1-2; 10:12-13). Indeed, nearly all the passages

discuss Jesus as high priest or acting as high priest (1:3-4; 4:14-16; 8:1-2; 10:12-13; cf.

12:2). Finally, Jesus’ purification, perfecting, and enthronement not only provide the

way into the sanctuary, but also an example to follow (12:2). The enabling of Jesus’

followers to approach the throne of grace because of Jesus’ sacrificial activities that led to

his own enthronement expands access to the most sacred, and it turns a single day of the

Day of Atonement to “the Day,” which signals the age to come, an age when the most

sacred time of the Sabbath extends indefinitely coinciding with broadened access to the
 328

most sacred heavenly space of the heavenly sanctuary with the throne as the focal point

of sacredness because it is the most concentrated place of God’s own presence.

 329

Chapter 11: Sabbath Rest and the Heavenly Homeland

The extended passage on Sabbath rest (3:7-4:11) stands out in the context of the

other themes, since it is neither anticipated nor retrospectively echoed, yet its central role

in the cosmogonic pattern and, thereby, its strong associations with the sanctuary make

its inclusion fitting. This passage has invited many interpretations. Ernst Käsemann,

Otfried Hofius, Harold Attridge, and Judith Hoch Wray have tried to explain as part of a

pre-Christian Gnostic redeemed redeemer myth,1 an eschatological place (i.e., the

heavenly holy of holies),2 or as a theological state of being.3 Excepting Käsemann, each

perspective has some grounding in the passage itself. Indeed, Hofius’s larger point

remains alongside these newer investigations: entering the rest is related to entering the

sanctuary in an eschatological context, although not simplistically. It is part of a

sophisticated argument that plays on temporal and spatial dimensions that integrates

1
Ernst Käsemann, The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews, trans.
Roy A. Harrisville and Irving L. Sandberg (Minneapolist: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984).
2
Otfried Hofius, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (Tübingen:
J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1970). Hofius directly rebutted Käsemann by emphasizing the eschatological
dimensions of Hebrews. Hofius’s equation of entering the rest with entering the holy of holies was
criticized by G. Theissen (Untersuchen zum Hebräerbrief (Gütersloh, 1969) 125ff) as too simplistic.
Theissen based his critique on the identification of God’s rest with the creation rest to empty the passage of
eschatological dimensions. While many agree with Theissen’s critique, he was defending the now widely
rejected position of Käsemann.
3
Harold W. Attridge, "'Let Us Strive to Enter that Rest': The Logic of Hebrews 4:1-11," HTR 73.1 (1980):
279-88; Judith Hoch Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of
Truth: Early Christian Homiletics of Rest (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998); cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 122-32.
See also the exegetical analysis of Randall C. Gleason, "The Old Testament Background of Rest in
Hebrews 3:7-4:11," Bibliotheca Sacra 157 (2000): 281-303; and Herold Weiss, "Sabbatismos in the Epistle
to the Hebrews," CBQ 58 (1996): 363-90; idem, A Day of Gladness, 147-62.
 330

Sabbath rest into the broader cosmogonic pattern that has entwined the Sabbath and the

sanctuary since the Pentateuch, but “relocated” in the heavenly realm.4

Although rest does not recur after this passage, it develops strong intratextual ties.

Here the interplay between space and time heightens into an initial climax before it recurs

with the Tabernacle in 9:1-14: overlapping spatial and temporal facets are only explored

in terms of the Sabbath and the Tabernacle. Hebrews 3:7-4:11 transforms spatial land-as-

rest traditions into a temporal Sabbath rest of God, citing the creation Sabbath from Gen.

2:2 (Heb. 4:4, 9-10). The passage parallels 11:1-12:2, where the promised land is

reconfigured into the heavenly homeland and the heavenly city (11:13-16, 39-40), which

anticipates the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22-24; 13:10-15). Both of these chapters

emphasize receiving God’s promise through fidelity and obedience, transforming the

promise into Sabbath rest and the heavenly homeland, making the Sabbath rest and the

heavenly realm equivalent as the same promise. Moreover, the “today” of 3:7-4:11

aligns with the “apart from us” of 11:39-40. Neither the disobedient (3:7-4:11) nor the

obedient (11:1-12:2) could enter the heavenly Sabbath rest and city “today” or “apart

from us.” Both passages culminate in the enthroned Jesus. The culmination of the

passage to “enter” God’s Sabbath rest is matched by the ability to enter the sanctuary

(10:19). Flanked by “God’s house” and the throne, related to the sanctuary by

spatiotemporal play and one’s ability to enter, and recalling the creation Sabbath the

passage deftly interweaves all four aspects of the cosmogonic pattern.

Throughout Hebrews, the homilist quotes, alludes to, and reshapes earlier

authoritative traditions to exalt Jesus as the great high priest after the order of

4
On the last point of “relocation,” so Isaacs, Sacred Space, 78-88.
 331

Melchizedek, who ascended to heaven, entered the heavenly temple, sprinkled his own

blood, and sat at the right hand of God to intercede for his clients,5 and to exhort the

auditors to remain faithful and not fall away.6 These functions mirror the text’s mixture

of epideictic and deliberative rhetoric; the former to praise a hero, and the latter to

persuade or dissuade someone from a course of action. The two forms of rhetoric support

one another—by praising a hero the author also exhorts the audience to imitation.7

Hebrews does this with regard to faithful figures, such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, but

also employs the inverse tactic of offering a negative example.

By interpreting Psalm 95 (94 LXX), Heb. 3:7-4:13 offers the example of the

desert generation, which failed to enter God’s rest due to disobedience and faithlessness.

Faith, obedience, and the “today” and “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall never enter

my rest’” (Ps. 95:11; 94:11 LXX) anaphorically punctuate this passage. The efficacy of

the negative example depends upon the perceived similarity between them and the

audience. Like that generation, which stood on the threshold of the promised land, the

author’s addressees stand on the threshold of God’s promised rest.8 Yet, as Attridge has

argued, this is not a relationship of type and antitype.9 While the wilderness generation

5
David DeSilva has argued that Hebrews uses the Mediterranean system of patron-client relations to
describe Jesus as a broker who most effectively intercedes with the divine patron for his clients. DeSilva,
“Exchanging Favor for Wrath,” 91-116; idem, Bearing Christ’s Approach, 63-93; idem, Perseverance in
Gratitude, 58-64.
6
For the interpretive virtuosity of the author, see DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 32-5.
7
On formal rhetoric and Hebrews, see DeSilva, Bearing Christ’s Approach, 6-14; idem, Perseverance in
Gratitude, 35-58.
8
See DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 146-7.
9
Attridge (“‘Let Us Strive to Enter that Rest,” 284) suggests the relationship is complicated because the
wilderness generation is a type and homily’s audience is the antitype, but the promised land is an antitype
to a more original type or God’s rest from Gen. 2:2. Attridge is correct to show that something different is
occurring between wilderness generation/current audience correlation and the rest of the promised
 332

and the author’s addressees share this relationship, the same cannot be said with Canaan

and God’s rest. Instead, in Hebrews rest in Canaan does not correspond to God’s rest for

the wilderness generation or the contemporary audience. While the correlation implicitly

stands due to expectations raised from using Psalm 95, Hebrews empties rest of its

expected spatial dimensions and reinterprets it temporally, transforming the sacred space

of the land into the sacred time of the Sabbath. The author carefully reshapes the

audience’s expectations of “rest” as promised land, the previous understanding of Psalm

95 (94 LXX), by carefully avoiding spatial terms throughout the exegesis, making the

reinterpretation of the promised rest as the Sabbath more prominent. This Sabbath rest,

therefore, becomes God’s Sabbath, a divine state of being that occurs only in the

heavenly realm, which is only accessible in the author’s present, “today,” through

obedience and faithfulness and through the perfected perfecter of faith, Jesus.

Heb 3:7-4:11 should be considered continuous through 4:13: the example of the

disobedient and faithless generation smoothly transitions into a scene of judgment, which

is then countered with the gracious and merciful high priest. The entire passage on

faithlessness is flanked by the faithful high priest in God’s house (3:1-6) and the merciful

high priest through whom one can approach the throne (4:14-16). These framing

passages share dense intratextual resonances. “Since we have a great high priest” (4:14a)

mirrors “so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest” (2:17) and “Jesus,

the apostle and high priest of our confession” (3:1). “Son of God” (4:14b) introduced in

the opening exordium (1:2) mirrors “but Christ was faithful over God’s house as a Son”

land/God’s rest correlation, but the logic of the passage suggests that while the metaphor of the promised
land as rest works to a certain extent, the rest that the wilderness generation failed to enter is the same rest
the current addressees are being exhorted to enter rather than being in a type-antitype relationship.
 333

(3:6). “Let us hold fast to our confession” (4:14c) partially mirrors “high priest of our

confession” (3:1) and “if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope” (3:6). The

sympathetic high priest, having been tempted but without sin (4:15) mirrors Jesus making

expiation for sins and by having suffered and being tempted is able to help those who are

tempted (2:17-18). Approaching the throne “with confidence” (4:16) mirrors holding fast

“our confidence” (3:6). Finally, “mercy” (4:16) recalls the “merciful” high priest (2:17).

With such a dense assemblage of linkages it is clear that 4:14-16 is anticipated by, alludes

back to, and condenses the phrasing of 2:17-3:6, which speaks of Jesus’ position vis-à-vis

the angels, Moses, and his own “sibling” followers. Appropriately, Jesus, the faithful

Son, and Moses, the faithful servant introduce the passage emphasizing faithlessness.

The Faithless and the Faithful

The desert generation provides the prototype of apostasy; when they stood at the

threshold of God’s rest, they were disobedient and unbelieving, and, therefore, failed to

enter it.10 The homilist presents this failure of disobedience through an extended exegesis

on Ps. 95 (94 LXX), the quotation of which begins this passage:

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not
harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness,
where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years.
Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray
in their hearts; they have not known my ways.’ As I swore in my wrath, ‘They
shall never enter my rest.’” (Heb. 3:7-11 quoting Ps. 94:7-11 LXX)11

The compilation of phrases--hardened hearts, going astray, and not knowing God’s

ways—indicates the extent of their apostasy. Having seen God’s works, they turned

10
See Käsemann, Wandering People of God, 19-20; Gray, Godly Fear, 160-61.
11
For an analysis of how Hebrews altered the Psalm, see Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor, 64-7.
 334

away in disobedience because they failed their “testing.” The two sides of the apostasy—

testing and turning away—are reinforced by peculiarities from the LXX. Meribah and

Massah, place names from MT, have been translated as “rebellion” and “testing” (Ps.

95:8; Heb. 3:8). Although Numbers 14 and Psalm 95 MT suggest these meanings for the

places,12 in the LXX the words lose their spatial sense and emphasize actions.13 Their

consequent failure of the wilderness generation’s entry into rest is emphasized throughout

the subsequent passage by repetition, twice quoting the Psalm’s climactic

pronouncement: “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall never enter my rest’” (Heb.

3:11/4:3). In contrast to this disobedient generation, the author subsequently exhorts his

readers, “Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart,

leading you to fall away from the living God” (3:12). Disobedience and unbelief are

repeated as the key problem: “And to whom did he swear that they should never enter

his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter

because of unbelief” (3:18-19). The tested failed generation provides a negative mirror to

the current audience, who also are being tested, stand at the threshold of God’s promised

rest, and are in danger of falling away.

Moreover, the homilist reads this Psalm in dialogue with Numbers 14 and 20, to

emphasize the necessity of fidelity to enter God’s rest.14 Heb. 3:15 again quotes Ps.

12
Cf. Exod. 17:1-7.
13
Attridge, Hebrews, 115.
14
Additionally, Psalm 110:4 is used to interpret Gen. 14:17-20 (Heb. 7:1-17). Overall, for Hebrews,
Psalms serves as its most explicit source of interpretation, even while heavily relying upon the Pentateuch
through paraphrase and allusion. Indeed, the homily begins with an exaltation of Jesus, demonstrating his
superiority to the angels by a string of quotations from Pss. 2:7, 97:7, 104:4, 45:6-7, 102:25-7, and 110:1
(Heb. 1:5-14). See Schenk, “A Celebration of the Enthroned Son,” 469-85; Attridge, Hebrews, 50-62. See
DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 142.
 335

94/5:7, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,”

subsequently interpreting this line with allusions to Numbers 14:

Who were they that heard and yet were rebellious? Was it not all those who left
Egypt under the leadership of Moses? And with whom was he provoked forty
years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
And to whom did he swear that they should never enter his rest, but to those who
were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.
(Heb. 3:16-19)

The series of rhetorical questions and answers heightens the dialogue between speaker

and audience as the speaker anticipates his audience while bringing Psalms and Numbers

into dialogue. Each question derives from a portion of the Psalm and is answered by the

Psalm and/or Numbers. Hearing and being rebellious (Ps. 95:7-8) is answered by those

who left Egypt with Moses and rebelled (Num. 14:1-10), being provoked for forty years

(Ps. 95:10) is answered by those whose bodies fell in the wilderness (Num. 14:29-35),

and failure to enter God’s rest (Ps. 95:11) is answered by disobedience and f unbelief.

This last coupling is implied by Psalm 95 itself, since the actions may imply unbelief or

disobedience, or it may refer back to Num. 14:33 for “their faithlessness” (‫זנותיכם‬/ τὴν

πορνείαν ὑµῶν) and Num. 14:11: “How long will this people despise me? And how long

will they not believe (οὐ πιστεύουσίν µοι) in me, in spite of all the things which I have

wrought among them?”15 Through this dialogue between Psalm 95 and Numbers 14, the

author emphasizes the primary point that fidelity and obedience will determine who will

enter God’s rest and receive God’s promises and who will receive God’s vengeance.16

The parallel between the speaker’s audience and the desert generation is made in

the subsequent verses: “For good news came to us just as to them; but the message
15
See Dennis Hamm, "Faith in the Epistle to the Hebrews," CBQ 52.2 (1990): 273.
16
Hamm, “Faith in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 270-91; DeSilva, “Exchanging Favor for Wrath,” 105-108.
 336

which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers.

For we who have believed enter that rest” (4:2-3). Both the addressees and the desert

generation received the same good news; however, the contrast is made between those

who disbelieve and did not enter the rest and those who have believed and can enter the

rest. Moreover, because they did not receive that rest, and Joshua merely led them into

Canaan and not the promised “rest,” “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God;

for whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his. Let us

therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience” (4:9-

11). By exhorting the followers of Jesus to strive to enter the Sabbath rest, the author is

exhorting them to be obedient and believing.

Apostates who disobey receive judgment:

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword,
piercing to the division of the soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning
the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden,
but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Heb.
4:12-13)

The disobedient will not bypass the discerning and perceptive “word of God.” The “day”

of judgment approaches (10:25), and those who continue to sin deliberately will be

judged and consumed by fire, for “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living

God” (Heb. 10:26-31). By contrast, the faithful can approach God’s throne and enter

God’s sanctuary with confidence (4:14-16; 10:19-25), since they have kept their faith

(10:39). Even before the numerous exhortations not to apostatize with the concomitant

dangers of divine vengeance, the author directly warns against disobedience:

Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift
away from it. For if the message declared by angels was valid and every
transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if
we neglect such a great salvation.” (Heb. 2:1-2)
 337

The message declared by the angels refers to the Torah given at Sinai, which is compared

to the greater message given by Jesus. Using a qal vehomer argument, if the punishment

for disobedience under the message given by angels was valid and just, the new and

improved system, with its greater benefits, exacts greater retribution for disobedience.

Although the homilist posits the desert generation as the prime example of

faithlessness and disobedience while exhorting the addressees to remain faithful in order

to enter God’s Sabbath rest, approach the throne, and enter the sanctuary, the homilist

elsewhere posits positive examples of and exhortations to obedience. Examples of

faithfulness can be found throughout Hebrews through Abraham, Moses, the long list of

the faithful in chapter 11, and Jesus, the perfecter of faith.

Hebrews lists the sojourning faithful in chapter 11, which constitutes the mirror

opposite of the wandering faithless of Heb. 3:7-4:11. Within this list and its culmination,

Hebrews supplies three primary positive examples of obedience: Abraham, Moses, and

Jesus. While every other figure in chapter 11 only receives one mention of “by faith,”

Abraham gets three (11:8, 9, 17) and Moses four (11:23, 24, 27, 28). These three are also

the only figures whose faithfulness and obedience are discussed outside of this chapter.

Abraham appears as faithful as early as Heb. 6:12-15. Here the author exhorts the

audience to be “imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises”

(6:12). This verse foreshadows chapter 11 as a whole, but emphasizes Abraham’s initial

role as a faithful receiver of promises: “For when God made a promise to Abraham,

since had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, ‘Surely I will

bless you and multiply you.’ And thus Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the
 338

promise” (6:13-15).17 Abraham often patiently endures, particularly with regard to the

binding of Isaac (Genesis 22), an event that threatened the promise of progeny and made

him the preeminent paradigm of obedience. This event is hinted at here, but discussed

more specifically in Heb. 11:17-19.18 This verse links patient endurance during

threatening trials, which directly contrasts the desert generation’s disobedience and

faithlessness during their testing, with faithfulness and receiving the promise.

In the “hall of faith,” his faithful obedience is further related to his sojourning:
By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was
to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go.
By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents
with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he looked forward
to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God. (Heb. 11:8-
10)

Abraham provides the mirror opposite of those who died in the desert. Both wandered

and sojourned,19 both were tested and tried, but whereas the desert generation was

disobedient and perished, not being allowed to enter God’s rest, Abraham was obedient

and dwelled in the land of promise, yet, while there, “he looked forward to the city which

has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” While he was obedient, he still did

not receive the promise, at least, not yet. Instead, the promise is the divinely built city,

which, as Heb. 11:13-16 clarifies, the promise (rest/city) is heavenly:

These all died in faith, not having received what was promised, but having seen it
and greeted from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and
exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking
a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out,
they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better

17
From here, the author discusses oath-taking, which plays an important role in the new covenant. See
DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 248-9.
18
Cf. Jub. 17.17-18; 19:3-8.
19
See DeSilva, Bearing Christ’s Reproach, 49-50; idem, Perseverance in Gratitude, 394-5.
 339

country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their
God, for he has prepared for them a city.

Like Abraham, all of faithful sojourn, being exiles on the foreign earth away from their

heavenly home, indicating that Canaan was never the promise, but heaven was. The

promised land has become the heavenly city, implicitly turning the unmentioned Egypt

into the entire earthly realm. All the faithful, like Abraham, look forward to the heavenly

homeland in contrast to the desert generation, which failed to enter God’s rest.20

Hebrews recurrently raises the issue of “promises.” Hebrews speaks of the

promises God made to Abraham, claiming that he had obtained the promise (6:15), yet in

in between Abraham’s demonstrations of faith, he died without having received the

promise (11:13). In Genesis the promises made to Abraham were twofold: land and

progeny.21 In Hebrews 6, the promise that Abraham obtained refers to his progeny:

“Surely I will bless you and multiply you.” In chapter 11 this promise is fulfilled

juxtaposed to the statement that he did not receive the promise: “Therefore from one

man, and him as good as dead, were born descendents as many as the stars in heaven and

as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore. These all died in faith, not having

received what was promised” (11:12-13). Abraham receives progeny, one of the

promises, and yet does not receive along with everyone else the promise of land or rest.

The splitting of the promise of land into the city and rest reflects God’s promise

to Moses: “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest” (Exod. 33:14). The

coincidence of God’s presence and rest reflects Exod. 23:20, “Behold, I send an angel

before you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place which I have

20
Cf. Heb. 11:39-40.
21
Gen. 12:7; 13:14-18; 15:3-21; 17:1-8; 21:1-3; 22:15-18; 24:7.
 340

prepared.”22 The promise of land as rest is made repeatedly by God, usually in terms of

rest from one’s enemies (Deut. 3:20; 12:10; 25:19; Josh. 11:23; 21:44; 22:4; 23:1). It is

clearest Joshua quotes Moses: “The LORD your God is providing you a place of rest, and

will give you this land” (Josh. 1:13). The place of rest which God has prepared

throughout the Pentateuch in Exodus sounds similar to Hebrews 11:16: “Therefore God

is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.”

In Hebrews the prepared promised place of rest becomes the heavenly homeland,

a city reinterpreting this promise of land/rest as access to the heavenly realm. The

faithful are exiles and strangers on earth (11:13-16), like the Exodus generation had been

in Egypt. Their homeland is heaven and not the earthly Canaan/Israel. The preparation

of a city foreshadows Zion, the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem in 12:22-24, securing

the identification of those spirits of just men made perfect with the faithful (cf. 13:14).

The promise given to Abraham and subsequent figures of land as rest has been

transformed into access to the heavenly realm, into God’s own presence expressed; it is a

promise given to the faithful, who like Abraham endure, not the faithless, who turned

away when tested. God’s heavenly promise—of land/rest—is expressed as the Sabbath

and the heavenly city, aligned as the tempus and locus of God’s presence.23

The correlation set up with Abraham, endurance, and faithfulness recurs in

chapters 11 and 12. The list highlights those who suffered (11:35-38), and provides

examples of death, resurrection, and sojourning to exhort the addressees to endure

suffering in 12:1-11. This begins, however, just preceding chapter 11’s list of the

22
Cf. Genesis 24:7.
23
On rest associated with God’s presence, see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 83-4.
 341

faithful, combining faithfulness, endurance, and receiving the promise. In Heb. 10:36-39,

the faithful endure, do the will of God and receive what was promised, while the

faithless, “those who shrink back” like the desert generation will be destroyed.

Hebrews also compares and contrasts Jesus and Moses as exempla of faithfulness,

obedience, and endurance.24 Moses’ faithfulness is emphasized in four instances of “by

faith” in chapter 11—by faith Moses was hid by his parents, chose to share ill-treatment

and abuse rather than palace pleasures, left Egypt, and kept the Passover (11:23-28).

With these four “by faiths,” faithfulness becomes associated with Moses in chapter 11

more than any other figure, other than Jesus as the perfecter of faith (12:2). Interestingly,

Moses like Christ and for Christ suffered, acting as both a prototype and a follower of

Christ and identifying his suffering with the suffering of the people of God.

Jesus’ and Moses’ faithfulness is featured in 3:1-6 as being faithful in God’s

house as Son and Servant respectively. This passage takes its cue from Num. 12:6-8:

If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision,
I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with
all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in dark speech;
and he beholds the form of the Lord.

Hebrews reiterates Moses’ exalted position in Numbers with regard to God’s house as

God’s servant. Moreover, this passage and others like it are in view when the homilist

says that Moses “endured, as seeing the invisible one” (11:27b).25 In Hebrews, both

24
For an extensive discussion of Moses in Hebrews, see Mary Rose D'Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the
Hebrews (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979).
25
This passage can be taken in two ways: either Moses endured the wrath of Pharaoh because he had seen
the invisible God or he endured the vision of the invisible God. Whether he endured the paradoxical vision
of the invisible form of God or the vision gave him strength to endure, the passage indicates the vision’s
intensity and rarity—the homilist attributes such a vision to no other figure, yet Moses’ visionary abilities
are noted twice: he saw the invisible one, i.e., God and the “pattern of the Tabernacle” (8:5). The passages
of Moses seeing God or the image or glory of God are numerous (e.g., Exod. 33:11; Deut. 34:10; cf. Sir.
45:6; 1 Cor. 13:12). D’Angelo, Moses and the Letter of Hebrews, 56, suggests the burning bush as a
 342

Moses and Jesus supply positive examples of faithfulness, although Jesus has

preeminence over Moses in their relative positions as son and servant.26 While Moses is

“in” (ἐν) the house, Jesus is “over” (ἐπί) it, emphasizing Jesus’ superior position by the

prepositions. Again Jesus’ actions bear upon the author’s addressees: “And we are his

house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope” (Heb. 3:6). Jesus’

faithfulness over his “house”—his followers including Moses “in” that house—is

matched by their endurance, confidence, and hope.

Not only is Jesus the faithful Son, but also the obedient Son: “Although he was a

Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became

the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (Heb. 5:8-9; cf. 2:10-11). Jesus had

to learn obedience and had to be made perfect, and, having been perfected, became the

source of salvation. This involves a double move of obedience. Jesus, obedient in

suffering, became perfect, sanctifies, saves, and perfects those who, in turn, obey him.

Much as he is the perfected perfecter, he is the obedient one who is obeyed.

Finally, the list of exemplars of faith in chapter 11 culminates with Jesus as the

pioneer and perfecter of faith (12:2). As with obedience, these two terms make Jesus

both the origin and the completion of faith. As the perfecter, he perfects all those who

came before him in the list and the homily’s audience.

possible background to this passage. On Moses’ seeing God face to face in the Bible and later tradition, see
D’Angelo (95-149). She mostly discusses this with regard to Heb. 3:1-6 in terms of seeing God’s “glory”
(arguing that for Hebrews the “glory” Moses saw was Jesus), but eventually returns this discussion to Heb.
11 much later, connecting Exod. 3:2ff., Exodus 33-4 through Num. 12:8 (183, 187-91).
26
Moses is depicted as a θεράπων rather than a δοῦλος; therefore, according to Hebrews, he served in God’s
house voluntarily as a servant rather than as a slave; DeSilva, “Exchanging Favor for Wrath,” 95-6; idem,
“Despising Shame,” 447; idem, Perseverance in Gratitude, 134-40; Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor,
60-63. Gray, Godly Fear, 139-40; see Attridge, Hebrews, 104-112.
 343

Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and their negative counterpart, the wilderness generation,

demonstrate that the litmus test concerning who can enter God’s Sabbath rest, the

heavenly city made by God, and who will be judged more harshly is faithfulness and

obedience. Both examples reinterpreted the land promised to Abraham and his

descendents as Sabbath (chs. 3-4) and the heavenly homeland (ch. 11), both becoming

equivalent expressions of the heavenly realm—the other expression of which is the

heavenly tent. These expressions of heaven as Sabbath, city, and sanctuary are grounded

in this promise, accessed by endurance and faithfulness, and made available “today.”

The Promise Still Remains “Today”

While obedience and faithfulness are the qualifying factors for entering God’s

rest, the author argues that that rest remains “today” by speaking of the rest for the desert

generation and the present audience as the same reality instead of different but

corresponding realities.27 What the desert generation failed to enter was not rest in

Canaan, but God’s Sabbath rest. Therefore, the homilist must explain not only the failure

of the desert generation to enter, but all who followed, even the faithful—a task involving

greater exegetical virtuosity. The author does this by emphasizing two aspects of Psalm

95. The phrases, “today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the

rebellion,” and, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall never enter my rest,’” anaphorically

recur, while providing the basis for the present availability of entering God’s rest. This

also marks the shift from spatial expectations to the disruption of those expectations with

temporal language with the recurrence of “today” and the reevaluation of “rest” from

27
Attridge (“Let Us Strive to Enter that Rest,” 284) argues that the wilderness generation and the audience
correspond as type and antitype, but that rest in the land of Canaan and God’s rest as type and prototype.
 344

land (space) into the Sabbath (time). Nonetheless, the exhortation to “enter” that rest

contains a residue of spatial conceptions, making Sabbath rest an important expression of

heavenly spacetime equivalent to the sanctuary, which one must also “enter” (10:19-25).

Just subsequent to the exegesis on Ps. 95:7, where the desert generation could not

enter God’s rest due to disobedience and unbelief, the author writes,

Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of
you be judged to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to
them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not
meet with faith in the hearers. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has
said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall never enter my rest’” (Heb. 4:1-3).

The first line is of primary importance: the promise of entering the rest remains. As

noted, this “promise” connotes the promised land and land as rest. That it remains relates

to the correlation between the desert generation and the present hearers in that, “good

news came to us as to them”: the same good news is the promise of rest.

The phrase, “For we who have believed enter that rest,” is striking on many

accounts. The emphasis on believing recurs, but then the author uses the present tense to

describe the actions of the addressees: “they enter that rest” or “are entering that rest.” It

is a current action.28 Through their continued faithfulness, they are in the process of

entering what was denied to the faithless. “That rest” signifies that the current entering of

rest and the past failure of rest relates to the very same “rest,” since it is the same

promise. The juxtaposition of the present tense of entering the rest with the repetition of

the quote from Ps. 95:11 appears discordant, but is used as the reason for the current

addressees’ ability to enter the rest (see below). Two verses later, the author again quotes

the same verse and again juxtaposes it with one’s current ability to enter the rest:

28
On whether one enters God’s rest in the present or the future based upon the tenses in this passage, see
DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 153-6; Attridge, “Let Us Strive to Enter that Rest,” 280.
 345

Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received
the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he sets a certain day,
‘Today,’ saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,
‘Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.’” (Heb. 4:6-7)

This juxtaposition of the desert generation and the hearers invites comparison between

them, both of whom must choose between falling away and entering the rest.

The key argument that the way is still open comes with the emphasis on “today,”

which explains both past failures and present opportunities. The word “today” and the

entire text from which it is taken, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your

hearts as in the rebellion,” play a central role throughout Heb. 3:7-4:13. Not including

the entire quotation of Ps. 95:7-11, Ps. 95:7 by itself is quoted two additional times (Heb.

3:15, 4:7), while the word “today” by itself also appears twice (3:13, 4:7) and is inferred

in the term “another day” (4:8). In the Psalm itself, the verse concerning “today” has

immediacy. After a long string of exhortations to acts of worship and exaltation of God,

the Psalmist writes, “O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord,

our Maker! For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his

hand” (Ps. 94/5:6-7). From here, the Psalmist speaks of “today,” when one should not act

like the wilderness generation, who hardened their hearts. In the Psalm, today relates to

both the immediate act of worship and the maintenance of the covenant; for Hebrews it is

the immediate act of entering rest and the maintenance of faithfulness and obedience.

Hebrews begins by assuming the “today” from the psalm refers to its own day:29

“But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today,’ that none of you may be

hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb. 3:13). Both “today” and hardening derive

29
Midrashic texts make the same move, creating exegetical difficulties (or opportunities); Ecclesiastes
Rabbah 10.20.1; Numbers (Naso) Rabbah 14.19; Leviticus (Emor) Rabbah 32.2; Hekhalot Rabbati 130.
 346

from the Psalm, but “today” is key to Psalm’s contemporary relevance. “Today,”

particularly the phrase, “as long as it is called ‘today,’” begins to bridge the gap between

the time of the Psalm, which the author attributes to David (Heb. 4:7) and the author’s

own time, because “as long as it is called ‘today’” would be everyday.

The author couples the next occurrence of “today” with a full quotation of Ps.

95:7:

And again in this place he said, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’ Since therefore
it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news
failed to enter because of disobedience, again he sets a certain day, “Today,”
saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, ‘Today,
when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.’ For if Joshua had given
them rest, God would not speak later of another day. (Heb. 4:5-8)

Like faithlessness and disobedience, the hardening of hearts was one of the attributes of

the wilderness generation’s apostasy.30 Instead of merely juxtaposing the desert

generation and the present hearers for comparison, the author suggests a causal

relationship between the past failure and present opportunity. The first part of the

passage argues that because “they shall never enter my rest” there is now an opportunity

to enter it. Because they failed to enter it due to disobedience, God needed to appoint

another day, being both David’s and Hebrews’ “today.” By attributing the psalm to

David as would be traditional and using the psalm to discuss the failure of the desert

generation rather than Numbers, the author can utilize the “today” to emphasize that not

only did the desert generation fail, but so did all who came after it.31 By using “today,”

30
After the quotation from Ps. 94/5:7-11, the concept reemerges throughout the exposition. For example,
Hebrews exhorts the auditors to “take care, siblings, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart,”
and then, “that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb. 3:12, 13).
31
See Weiss, “Sabbatismos,” 678-9.
 347

the author states that at David’s time, God’s rest had yet to be entered—the conquests of

Joshua, who gave them the land, failed to give them the promised rest.32

This assists in explaining the disparity in chapter 11, when the faithful did not

receive God’s promise (11:13, 39). The author explains: “since God had foreseen

something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect” (Heb. 11:40).

“Apart from us” aligns with “today.” “Apart from us” the faithful were not made perfect

and as such could not receive the promise. Thus, even the faithful had not received the

promise, had not entered the rest, and not entered the heavenly realm, but “today” such a

promise is open and rest can be entered.33 This suggests not only a causal relationship

between the failure of the desert generation and present opportunities, but also a temporal

distinction—after the desert generation the entrance into God’s rest was impossible for

all, because they could not be perfected “apart from us.” The difference between the

faithful and the unfaithful, therefore, is that the former eventually would receive the

promise with Jesus’ advent, whereas the latter would never enter God’s rest. Thus,

Hebrews repeatedly quotes Ps. 95:11: “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall never enter

my rest.’” Having David declare that no one had entered God’s rest, although David was

living in Israel, and later stating that even the faithful had not received the promise and

were sojourners on this earth, indicates to the reader that Hebrews conceives of rest as

something other than the land of promise. The failure of the desert generation to enter

that rest due to disobedience, and the failure of all who followed despite their obedience,

provides the need for “another day,” which is the author’s “today,” the “something

32
Attridge, “Let Us Strive to Enter that Rest,” 280.
33
Wray (Rest as a Theological Metaphor, 77) lays out an equation of how to enter God’s rest as: “the word
heard + faith with us + today => entering into the rest.”
 348

better” that God had foreseen had come to pass.34 It will reconfigure the promised land,

the land as rest, into a heavenly reality of the Sabbath.

From Space to Time: The Rest as the Sabbath

By saying the rest is available today and has not been available in the past even to

the exemplars of faith, rest itself is re-envisioned from rest in Canaan to heavenly rest.

To this point the author has toyed with presuppositions of a correspondence between rest

in the promised land and heavenly rest, but has transformed that correlation by making

the promised rest of the desert generation and the present audience not corresponding

realities but the same reality. Having thus played with audience expectations, the author

drops a time-bomb: rest is not “land” or not just a “heavenly homeland,” but holy time,

the Sabbath, God’s seventh-day rest of Creation. Yet having reinterpreted “rest” as

Sabbath, the term introduced, “Sabbath rest” (σαββατισµός), a hapax legomenon

complicates the concept, recasting what rest signifies.

Κατάπαυσις in Greek Biblical Literature

Much ink has been spilt over what rest (κατάπαυσις) means in Hebrews. Hofius

traced the word through Jewish apocalyptic literature and concluded that it was an

eschatological place, a Ruheort.35 Attridge dissociates rest from place and apocalyptic

connotations, but emphasizes the theological and ontological elements of “God’s

34
Cf. Weiss, “Sabbatismos,” 681-2; Attridge, Hebrews, 125.
35
Hofius, Katapausis; Attridge (“Let Us Strive to Enter that Rest,” 283) provides a critique of Hofius.
 349

repose.”36 In his later commentary, however, he emphasizes tensions between future and

present consummations and between time, place, and states of being.37 Wray, too,

emphasizing the “God” in “God’s rest” and the obscure term, σαββατισµός, has suggested

that κατάπαυσις is primarily a theological metaphor, while not denying eschatological

associations.38 Ultimately, κατάπαυσις is a polyvalent concept in Hebrews. Its

reinterpretation in terms of σαββατισµός, moreover, creates an interplay between space

and time, both deterritorializing (3:7-4:11) and reterritorializing (11:13-16) the promised

rest into the heavenly homeland of Sabbath rest.

The most extensive discussion of κατάπαυσις is Hofius’. He discussed the

terminology in terms of Psalm 95 and later apocalyptic literature such as 4 Ezra, but he

did not give a systematic discussion of biblical usage as a whole. His analysis of

apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature is impressive.39 Unfortunately most of this

literature only exists in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other languages, making a direct

connection with the Greek term κατάπαυσις difficult. Is the Latin text of 4 Ezra

translating ἀνάπαυσις or κατάπαυσις with requies (4 Ezra 5:36; 8:52; cf. Pseudo-Philo

19:10-13)? Does it make a difference? In fact, most of Hofius’ Greek examples use

36
Attridge, “Let Us Strive to Enter that Rest,” 283.
37
Hebrews,128. He writes, “More precise interpretation of Hebrews’s understanding of ‘entry into rest’
must depend to a large extent on the understanding of related soteriological motifs in Hebrews itself, motifs
such as inheritance of the promise, glorification, and perfection…. It is the process of entry into God’s
presence, the heavenly homeland (11:16), the unshakeable kingdom (12:28), begun at baptism (10:22) and
consummated as a whole eschatologically. In the image of the divine rest, as in Hebrews’s soteriological
imagery generally, there is the same tension between personal and corporate, between ‘realized’ and
‘future’ eschatology that characterizes much early Christian literature.”
38
Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor.
39
Hofius, Katapausis, 59-90.
 350

ἀνάπαυσις rather than κατάπαυσις (e.g., TDan 5:12).40 The most interesting example of

κατάπαυσις does not come from an apocalyptic work, but from Joseph and Asenath. In it

Joseph prays that Asenath will join God’s chosen people, enter God’s rest, and live in

God’s eternal life (8:11).41 In this case, rest is entered when one joins the covenanted

community rather than being an eschatological rest.

What his analysis does, however, is show that in multiple languages using many

terms for “rest” there exists a strong future orientation, often associating rest with the

future establishment of Paradise as in 4 Ezra. But whether κατάπαυσις has more specific

connotations that other terms do not have is not easy to determine from Hofius’ analysis.

When one turns to actual usages of the term in the Greek translation of the Bible, it turns

out that he is correct about it being a “Ruheort”—the primary associations are spatial

with regard to both the land and the temple—but it is also a time of rest of the Sabbath.

The eschatological dimension for Hebrews instead derives from the contemporary

context of coming to terms with Jesus’ advent and the destruction of the temple.

The term in noun form appears rarely in Greek translation of the Bible: fourteen

occurrences in thirteen passages. While in Greek literature it can mean a putting to rest

or a deposing, in the Greek Bible it only occasionally has such connotations. It mostly

refers to God’s own rest or the people’s restful cessation from work spatially in the land

and temporally on the Sabbath.

While this rest can refer to the forcible “putting down” of the Benjaminites (Judg.

20:43) or God’s anger “resting” on sinners (Sir. 5:6), it mostly has positive overtones. It

40
The Testament of Joseph, Apocalypse of Ezra, and Paralipomena of Jeremiah also prefer ἀνάπαυσις; see
Hofius, Katapausis, 72-3.
41
See Hofius, Katapausis, 67.
 351

can refer to the rest of the Ark (Num. 10:36; 1 Chron. 6:16 (6:31 Heb)) and the

inheritance of the land as rest (Deut. 12:9, 10; Ps. 94:11 (95:11 Heb)). It mostly,

however, relates to God’s rest within the sanctuary (1 Kgs 8:56; 2 Chron. 6:41; Ps.

131:14 (Ps. 132:14 Heb.); Is. 66:1; Judith 9:8; cf. Sir. 24:11). 1 Kgs 8:56 has a degree of

ambiguity. It occurs during Solomon’s dedication of the temple and refers to God

granting the people rest in a recounting from Moses. It could, therefore, be added to the

land-as-rest passages, but also has a strong attachment to the temple’s construction. In 2

Chronicles’ version, however, it is clearly the rest in the temple. In Isaiah God claims

that heaven is the throne and the earth the footstool and so “what is the house which you

would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?” The parallelism aligns the temple

and the place of rest, but questions how a human construction could provide such a place.

The passage from Judith aligns rest with the tabernacle, which is literally the “tent of the

rest of your name” (cf. Sir. 24:8). While primarily spatial, this rest also has some

temporal facets, being associated with the Sabbath (Exod. 35:2; 2 Macc. 15:1). The

Exodus passage translates the “holy Sabbath of solemn rest.” In so doing, it piles on the

terminology using both κατάπαυσις and ἀνάπαυσις. 2 Maccabees uses “day of rest” as an

alternative for “Sabbath.” For the cases where there are parallels in the Hebrew Bible,

κατάπαυσις translates some form of ‫ מנוחה‬with Exod. 35:2 providing the one exception

where it is part of the translation of the “Sabbath of complete rest.”

Κατάπαυσις in noun form, therefore, mostly refers to God’s rest in sacred space, a

sacred object’s rest, or the people’s rest in sacred space and sacred time. It is the ark’s

resting, the people’s rest or failure to rest in the land, rest on the seventh day, and most of
 352

all God’s rest within God’s sanctuary. It links the land, the sanctuary and its cultic

implements, and the Sabbath together in God’s resting and the people’s resting.

While the noun form has been associated with the land, the ark, the temple, and

the Sabbath, it is only with the verb form that one finds a direct translation of God’s

seventh-day rest or ceasing in creation. In verb form in the Bible, καταπαὐω appears far

more extensively and retains the stronger connotations of laying to rest or ending,42 and

the more violent putting down or deposing.43 Sirach, however, associates it with Wisdom

finding a dwelling place or resting place in Israel (Sir. 24:8, 11). It is associated with

resting from war in the land or giving the land rest.44 Finally, it translates the verb

‫( שבת‬shavat) referring to God’s seventh-day cessation from creation in Gen. 2:2-3, and

again to God’s creation rest in Exod. 20:11, 31:17.45 In addition to the violent putting

down, therefore, the verb spatially indicates rest in land from one’s enemies, while

occasionally indicating the seventh-day rest from work that imitates God’s own ceasing.

Κατάπαυσις, therefore, ranges widely, but mostly relates to forms of sacred rest:

the Ark’s rest, God’s resting place, the people’s rest in the land, and the Sabbath. The

spatial aspect predominates in the land and the temple, while temporal rest occasionally

occurs when recalling and imitating God’s own rest from creation on the Sabbath. The

42
e.g., Gen. 49:33; Exod. 31:18, 34:33; Num. 25:11; Josh. 10:20; 2 Chr. 16:5; Jdt. 6:1; 1 Macc. 9:73; 2
Macc. 15:37; Sir. 45:3; 2 Esd. 14:5.
43
Judg. 20:43; 1 Kings 23:5, 11; Lam. 3:11; Hos. 1:4; 11:6; Sir. 10:17. It also has a sense of settling and
dwelling (Exod. 10:14; Deut. 33:12; cf. Josh. 3:13), quotidian resting (Exod. 5:5; Ruth 2:7), resting under
the rule of a good king (2 Chr. 14:5; 20:30). The dwelling in Deut. 33:12 is particularly interesting because
it occurs as a synonym for κατασκηνὠσω, that is to “tabernacle.”
44
Exod. 33:14; Josh. 1:13; 11:23; 21:44; 22:4; 2 Chr. 14:5-6; 15:15, 32:23; Sir. 44:23; 47:13.
45
A combination of the violent element of putting down and God’s creation appear in Job 26:12 where God
“stills” the primordial sea.
 353

Greek translation allowed additional associative exegesis: the Greek translation of

‫ שבת‬and ‫ מנוחה‬with the same root term κατάπαυσεν and κατάπαυσις respectively, enabled

Hebrews more directly to align the land’s rest, God’s resting-place, and God’s creative

Sabbath rest. In this alignment to enter God’s rest will be to enter heavenly realities,

partly resembling the role of the Sabbath to enter the heavenly Tabernacle in the Songs.

The Spatiotemporal Facets of κατάπαυσις in Hebrews

Using Psalm 95 as the primary text to interpret the events described in Numbers

directs the reader to a reinterpretation of the events that has occurred in Psalm 95 itself.

Psalm 95 introduces the term rest (κατάπαυσις) to signify the land. As noted above, the

land and rest were already identified with one another. Κατάπαυσις translates ‫מנוחה‬, as it

usually does in the Bible, and this passage gives “rest” a territorial dimension that carries

over into Hebrews in terms of the audience’s expectations. The original correlation in

Psalm 95 with territory is strengthened by the discussion of Meribah and Massah, which

were places of rebellion and testing that prevented the desert generation from entering the

place of rest. Yet, the LXX translation of Meribah and Massah from places to actions

and attitudes related to those place names already loosens the territorial dimension of rest.

Hebrews subsequently reinterprets rest by disassociating it from the land and

associating it with the Sabbath in Gen. 2:2. The dissociation from the land occurs by

speaking of the availability of rest “today” due to the failure of the wilderness generation

to enter it. As discussed, David’s “today” implies that even those who came after the

faithless generation failed to enter it; those who entered Canaan failed to enter God’s rest.
 354

This dissociation is taken up in chapter 11 with regard to Abraham, where the

promised land for Abraham and his heirs is the city “whose builder and maker is God”

(Heb. 11:9-10). The sojourner, Abraham, contrasts the wilderness generation. While the

wilderness generation was not able to enter Canaan or God’s rest/heavenly homeland,

Abraham’s heirs entered the former and had to wait for the latter. This introduces an

element of time, of delay. Yet a city built by God could either be a heavenly city or an

earthly eschatological city. This concept of an eschatological earthly city in a renewed

earth occurs in the roughly contemporary documents 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra (e.g. 4 Ezra

7:26, 13:36). 4 Ezra 8:51-2 even associates this new city of the age to come with

paradise, the tree of life, and rest. This associates rest with both time in the age to come

and place in paradise and the city, but it is a future earthly paradise.46

But in Hebrews the delay of receiving the promises looks to “today” to make a

different point: it is heavenly. In Heb. 11:13-16, the disassociation between the earthly

land of promise and the city made by God receives its fullest treatment. The sojourning

faithful are exiles upon the earth, their homeland is heaven, and it is there that God is

preparing a city. Although they dwelled in Canaan, they did not receive the promise.

Sojourning no longer just refers to land, but to the earth as a whole, making the homeland

heaven itself, relocating the prepared promised place. In this way, even the faithful had

not yet entered into it because they could not complete their journey “apart from us.”

Here the focus remains on territory, but a heavenly territory and a heavenly city.47

46
Cf. 2 Bar. 4:1-7; 4 Ezra 7:91-99.
47
Käsemann (Wandering People of God, 68) makes a similar point.
 355

The heavenly city resurfaces in Heb. 12:22-24, where the auditors “have come to

Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable

angels in festal gathering and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in

heaven, and to a judge who is god of all and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to

Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant.” The “spirits of just men made perfect” recalls

the figures from Hebrews 11. Twice in chapter 11, the author writes that these faithful

individuals did not receive the promises before they died (Heb. 11:13, 39). Heb. 11:39-

40 claims they did not receive the promises because they could not be perfected “apart

from us.” According to this verse, God knew that something better was coming (namely,

Jesus), and, therefore, delayed perfecting the exemplars of faith. Without being

perfected, they could not receive the promise and enter into the heavenly Jerusalem.

Yet “today” Jesus has entered the heavenly realm, sprinkled his own blood on the

altar, and has been enthroned next to God, securing “eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11-12).

Jesus, who was perfected (Heb. 5:9), became the perfecter of faith (Heb. 12:2). By his

actions in the heavenly temple, “he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified”

(10:14). This would include the heroes of the past or their “spirits”48 and Jesus’ current

followers. While figures like Abraham died without seeing the promises fulfilled, he did

so only because “apart from us they should not be made perfect.” But this phrase also

indicates that because of Jesus’ actions, they have now been made perfect and can enjoy

the heavenly promise. They, therefore, having been faithful, have been made perfect and

entered into the heavenly Jerusalem, in contrast to the wilderness generation, who died in

the desert. By chapter 12, likewise, the auditors “have come” to this heavenly reality.

48
The text occasionally discloses a binary between flesh and spirit, in which life in this world is in the flesh
and the future heavenly realm is one of spirit; see Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 133-39.
 356

The reconception of rest in chapter 4, however, becomes too complex to explain

only through heavenly relocation,49 but denotes a temporal reality. The time element of

“today,” denoting when access to rest is available—when Jesus appeared as the perfected

perfecter and perfected the faithful and obedient—gives rest an eschatological dimension,

although it is never associated with an earthly reality but only a heavenly one.50

In this passage the homilist completely omits spatial terminology, except perhaps

the verb “to enter,” and then switches to temporal language, punctuating the passage

throughout with the word “today.” While the audience would expect spatial registers

when hearing the story recounted in Psalm 94 LXX and its subsequent story with Joshua,

the departure from the expected narrative occurs in 4:4-5 and 4:9 with Sabbath rest

(σαββατισµός). Using the gezera shawa method to identify the κατἀπαυσις of Ps. 95 and

κατέπαυσεν of God in Gen 2:2, this exegesis transforms the expected spatial rest into

time, retroactively reinterpreting “rest” throughout this passage as the Sabbath:

“although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has

somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way, ‘And God rested on the seventh day

from all his works’” (Heb. 4:3-4). In this method, because Ps. 95:11 and Gen. 2:2 share

cognates of the same word, κατάπαυσις, they can be read in light of one another—which

can only occur in the Greek translation since the MT uses two different words.51 The

“my rest” used throughout the passage, then, is understood as God’s rest on the seventh

49
Cf. Isaacs, Sacred Space, 78-88.
50
Even at the end of time, there cannot be an earthly rest, since God will “shake” and “remove” the earth
and even the heavens, but God’s heavenly “kingdom” cannot be shaken (Heb. 12:26-9); DeSilva,
Perseverance in Gratitude, 27-32, 469-74.
51
See Attridge, “Let Us Strive to Enter that Rest,” 282.
 357

day of creation. God’s rest from the work of creation, the one reflected in the instructions

and building of the Tabernacle, is a day, “today.” And the homilist exhorts the audience

to participate in that Sabbath, which will be reconfigured in a heavenly manner. The

promised rest is a Sabbath, which one must “strive to enter.”

The introduction of Sabbath in the failure to enter the rest may rely upon Ezekiel.

Ezek. 20:10-17 states that the wilderness generation did not enter the land because they

failed to observe God’s ordinances and statutes, the only one named being Sabbath

observance (20:16; cf. Leviticus 26). Just as the wilderness generation did not enter the

land because they profaned the Sabbath in Ezekiel, they did not enter the Sabbath

because of their unfaithfulness and disobedience in Hebrews.

The overtaking of rest as place by rest as time becomes complete in speaking of

Joshua, who, Hebrews claims, failed to lead the Israelites into the rest:

For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later of another day. So
then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God; for whoever enters
God’s rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his. Let us therefore strive
to enter that rest….” (Heb. 4:8-11a)

Joshua fails to lead them into God’s rest, assumed as land but clarified as a day. “Day” is

a multivalent term. The day of the LORD was a day of judgment, and, indeed, this

passage ends in judgment. It was also the day when God rested, the Sabbath; however,

“the Day” was also the Day of Atonement, also intersecting with judgment, sin, and

purgation of sin impurity, and part of an eschatological scheme. The seventh day, the day

of rest, and the day of the LORD, then, suggests that the “age/world to come” was the

spatiotemporal setting of rest. By combining the heavenly place of rest with the time of

rest—the Sabbath, the age to come, the day of the LORD—Hebrews creates rest as an

imitative state of being, “for whoever enters God’s rest ceases from his labors as God did
 358

from his.” Entering God’s rest is to imitate God by resting as God did on the Sabbath,

and also entering God’s presence as the high priest did on the Day of Atonement, but

now accessible for all of Jesus’ followers in the heavenly realm due to Jesus’ self-

sacrifice as high priest and sacrificial victim.

By citing the creation Sabbath, rest gains a protological aspect. The Sabbath is

cosmically foundational beyond the structure of the world.52 Attridge argues that the

redefinition of κατάπαυσις from Ps. 95:11 in terms of Gen. 2:2 dissociates rest from

eschatological or heavenly associations and ontologically identifies it with God’s Sabbath

repose.53 Wray sees the “primordial Sabbath of creation” as making rest inclusive of but

more than eschatological; it is “the reality into which the faithful enter, the REST which

is the promise and the reality for those who hear with faith.”54 Both Attridge and Wray

emphasize that by connecting rest with Gen. 2:2, Hebrews formulates rest as an aspect of

God’s own existence, and, in the process, as an aspect of creation.55 This passage,

moreover, draws out something that is clear in the Pentateuch, Jubilees, and the Songs:

the practice of the Sabbath, here the “entering” of the Sabbath, is an act of divine

imitation. Hebrews, thereby, draws upon the priestly predilection of divine imitation,

expressed itself in resting on the seventh day as God did and being holy as God is holy.

Attridge and Wray correctly emphasize the Sabbath as a divine state of being,

although not to make this state of being exclusive of temporal and heavenly dimensions:

52
DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 165.
53
Attridge, “Let Us Strive to Enter that Rest,” 283.
54
Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor, 80.
55
Attridge, “Let Us Strive to Enter that Rest,” 281-2; see Attridge, Hebrews, 24, 129-31.
 359

this state of being is God’s being, albeit God’s being in heaven.56 Choosing this verse

denotes that Sabbath rest foundationally inheres in cosmic order as an expression of

heavenly reality, equivalent to the heavenly tent (9:24). Hebrews uses God’s actions in

Gen. 2:2 as something to emulate, as the Sabbath and the building of the Tabernacle were

a form of imitatio dei in the Pentateuch and imitatio angelorum in Jubilees and the Songs.

Through the Sabbath as a heavenly reality and as the coming age, which is “today,” rest

becomes the idyllic state, an ongoing, permanent Sabbath that imitates God while

entering into God’s heavenly presence. One must imitate God to draw near to God.

Given the eschatology of Hebrews, the end is “today,” and, therefore, the author

can say that the hearers “are entering” God’s rest and can exhort them to “strive to enter

God’s rest.”57 Identifying rest with Gen. 2:2 and emphasizing its theological aspect allow

the exhortation to enter God’s rest to be understood in terms of eschatological and

protological time united in the Sabbath. God’s Sabbath and the sanctuary have become

temporal and spatial expressions of the heavenly realm, moving fluidly from one to the

other to make the same point—to remain faithful and enter it (4:11; 10:19).

Identifying the Sabbath with the heavenly realm is a new development that begins

in Jubilees and the Songs. Nevertheless, the association between the Sabbath and

heavenly realities differs in the Songs from the correlation in Hebrews. Whereas in the

Songs, the Sabbath serves as the temporal condition when one can evoke divine activities

and participate in them, in Hebrews the Sabbath itself becomes something more

substantive, which would explain why the author uses the strange substantive form,

56
Cf. Weiss, “Sabbatismos,” 682-9.
57
Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor, 80.
 360

σαββατισµός. It is not only when one can participate in heavenly realities, but it is also a

part of the structure of heaven itself, just as the Tabernacle is.

The word σαββατισµός is not the usual Greek term for Sabbath (τὸ σάββατον), but

a hapax legomenon. Rest, in terms of being Sabbath and a cessation from work, is a state

of being.58 Such an emphasis corresponds to the de-emphasis on territory in Psalm 94

LXX. The translation of Meribah as “rebelliousness” emphasizes a state of

“rebelliousness” that is incommensurable with a state of rest. As rest is being

reinterpreted, so is the Sabbath. This Sabbath does not appear to be the weekly respite

from work, but something of cosmic and eschatological proportions; instead of something

to be entered into once a week, it is a heavenly reality to enter into permanently at the end

of time, which, for the author is now. Indeed, the author has already directed the reader

to Genesis. Not long after learning of God’s rest on the seventh day, one learns that

Adam’s punishment is toil (Gen. 3:17-19). Toil is life’s status quo, but the heavenly

reward is ceasing from one’s labors as God did, a status yet to be attained.

Not surprising when following this priestly tradition, like the Songs Hebrews

relates entering Sabbath rest to approaching the throne and entering the sanctuary through

cultic language in the exhortation, “Let us therefore strive to enter that rest”

(σπουδάσωµεν οὖν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν κατάπαυσιν). Combining exhortation and

imitation, the homilist exhorts the audience to enter, and, by entering the Sabbath rest and

the sanctuary, they imitate God and Jesus.

58
On “work” in Hebrews, see Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor, 78-9.
 361

The exhortation of a movement into (εἰσέρχοµαι) or toward (προσέρχοµαι /

ἐγγίζοµεν) recurs throughout Hebrews, but appears here first.59 As discussed below, they

are cultic terms.60 Priests are “those who draw near” (Heb. 10:1), a term also applied to

Jesus’ followers (7:25). The cultic language of approaching and entering denotes access

to the heavenly sanctuary and the Sabbath rest that those obedient to God attain. It

relates to approaching the throne (4:16), entering the heavenly temple (10:19) as Jesus

entered the heavenly tent (9:12), or drawing near to God (7:19, 25; cf. 12:22). This

language is not just priestly, but high priestly, since only the high priest enters the holy of

holies and approaches the throne, the mercy-seat.

While the promised rest has become the Sabbath and the heavenly homeland, this

language indicates the functional equivalency of Sabbath and heaven, or Sabbath as

heaven, in the equivalent cultic language. Just as they imitate God by resting has he did,

Jesus’ followers imitate him by going where he went: past the curtain into the heavenly

sanctuary, as heavenly high priests themselves. Like him and through him, they approach

God. But it all begins with Sabbath rest, a day, in fact the day, a new Day of Atonement.

Starting by entering God’s rest, one approaches the throne, approaches God, and enters

the sanctuary, and draws near to the heavenly Jerusalem. As the Sabbath and the

sanctuary were equivalent in holiness in the Pentateuch, they are now equivalent in

heavenliness in Hebrews; in both they are designations of proximity to God. At the same

time, the high priesthood has become democratized to all of Jesus’ followers, who can

59
Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor, 84-5; See DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 162-3.
60
The most extensive discussion is Scholer, Proleptic Priests; see Attridge, Hebrews, 22.
 362

now enter the Sabbath rest and, thereby, approach the throne, just as the high priest on the

Day of Atonement entered the sanctuary and approached the throne.

Conclusion

In Hebrews the wilderness generation stood at the threshold of God’s rest, but

failed to enter it due to faithlessness and disobedience, serving as a warning against

apostasy and an exhortation to remain faithful. Yet Hebrews does not just posit the

wilderness generation as a negative example to compare to one’s current situation, but

uses the desert generation as depicted in Psalm 94 LXX to construct a relationship

between their former failure and current opportunities to enter God’s rest. Due to the

desert generation’s apostasy, God appointed another day. That this day, “today,” was

David’s time meant that no one had entered God’s rest, whether faithful or faithless. This

creates a new relationship between past figures and the present audience. A temporal

argument comes into play. “Today” becomes the day of the Lord or the age inaugurated

by Jesus’ actions in the heavenly sanctuary; that is, the eschatological and heavenly Day

of Atonement. Therefore, the past faithful, who could not be made perfect “apart from

us,” now constitute a “cloud of witnesses” (Heb. 12:1) and, having been perfected by

Jesus, now receive the promises as the “spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb. 12:23).

This relationship between past faithless and faithful figures and the author’s

current audience has consequences regarding the relationship between promised rest, the

promised land, the Sabbath, and the heavenly realm: the promised land becomes

deterritorialized and temporalized as the Sabbath (3:7-4:11) and reterritorialized as the

 363

heavenly homeland (11:13-16, 39-40).61 If no one had entered God’s rest by David’s

time, then rest itself must be reinterpreted. Those who entered Canaan had not received

God’s promised rest. The promise for Abraham, the desert generation, and for Hebrews’

audience could not be Canaan, but heavenly Sabbath rest and the heavenly city, both

established by God. Rest becomes identified with heaven, and the introduction of Gen.

2:2 and God’s Sabbath rest adds new layers to an already polyvalent concept. Ultimately,

Hebrews constructs Sabbath rest as a state of being instituted by God at the beginning of

time on the seventh day, which can only be experienced in the heavenly realm where God

is at the end of time—the author’s present—by those who, like Abraham and the past

faithful and unlike the desert generation, remain faithful and obedient.

Through the intratextual interrelationship between 3:7-4:11 and 11:1-12:2 in

terms of fidelity, wandering, and the promised heavenly rest and homeland, the author

developed an interrelationship between space and time, between Sabbath rest and the

heavenly city, both of which are heaven, which is itself the sanctuary (9:24). Although

“rest” is neither anticipated nor recapitulated, the author has skillfully interwoven nearly

all of the elements of the cosmogonic pattern while playing with elements of space and

time, turning spatial conceptions of rest into a temporally saturated heavenly Sabbath.

61
Cf. the language of “relocation” to God’s heavenly presence in Isaacs, Sacred Space, 78-88.
 364

Chapter 12: God’s House, the Sanctuary, and the Tent

If Hebrews can be placed in Flavian Rome by authorship, immediate readership,

or those related to them, the choice of a heavenly Tabernacle would be apt. Even if not

immediately in Rome, the Flavian actions and policies would reverberate throughout the

empire, affecting Jewish and early Christian life. The Flavians, particularly Vespasian

and Titus, partly legitimized their reign—and the break with the Julio-Claudian

dynasty—with their victory in the Jewish War. When a conquering general was awarded

a triumphal parade, the prisoners and spoils of war were paraded through the streets of

Rome, including—according to the Arch of Titus—the temple implements, featuring the

Menorah. The spoils contributed to the funding of the building of the Colosseum on top

of Nero’s resented Golden House, turning the overreaching imperial private property into

a public space. The temple implements were then placed into a newly built Temple of

Peace. Eventually the Arch of Titus would also be built in this transformed Forum to

commemorate the victory over the Jews. Finally, the Flavians redirected and expanded

the temple tax into a Jewish Tax that filled the coffers for rebuilding the temple to Jupiter

Capitolinus. In all respects, the Jewish temple and its coffers were redirected for Flavian

projects and placed in the Roman civic religious complex.

A Jew, early Gentile convert, or early Jesus-following sympathizer would be

expected to respond with despair, disaffection, and anger. Apocalyptic pronouncements

of the temple’s permanent reestablishment occurred (2 Baruch and 4 Ezra). Instead, like
 365

the Priestly response to the first temple’s destruction and the Songs’ separation from the

temple, the author of Hebrews responded by associating the Sabbath with the Sanctuary.

The Sabbath again became the temporal entrance into the heavenly realities of the

sanctuary and city, although here in an enduring eschatological Sabbath in heaven. In so

doing, the author also looked back to a sanctuary that preceded the stationary temple.

The Tabernacle was the mobile sanctuary whose fate need not be tied to a single locality,

but for Hebrews it was also a heavenly tent whose fate was not tied to any earthly

locality. This heavenly Tabernacle, moreover, was heaven itself; heaven becomes a

Tabernacle built by God (Heb. 8:2; 9:24). Like in the Songs Hebrews identifies what

Moses saw on Sinai as the heavenly Tabernacle itself (8:5). The model of the mobile

Tabernacle has a heavenly permanence that will not pass away (12:28). In the wake of

the destroyed Jerusalem temple, the author re-invokes the Sabbath-Sanctuary connection,

and contrasting the recently built earthly brick-and-mortar-and-marble Temple of Peace,

Colosseum, Arch of Titus, and Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, all of which would be

shaken (12:26-27), Hebrews sets a permanent, heavenly Tabernacle pitched by God to

endure forever in an enduring heavenly Sabbath rest.

This heavenly sanctuary is the counterpart of the heavenly Sabbath: both are

“entered” (4:11; 10:9) and have heightened spatiotemporal interplay in which spatial

dimensions become temporal (3:7-4:11; 9:1-14). The sanctuary may introduce the

Sabbath passage in 3:2-6 as “God’s house,” the most prevalent term for the sanctuary in

the Bible. This house doubles as God’s “household,” but will be explicitly equated with

the sanctuary later in Hebrews (10:19-25). This “house” also links up with the language

of the merciful high priest, and has intratextual associations with the exhortation to
 366

approach the throne (4:14-16). Sanctuary language climaxes in chapters 8-10 with the

“true tent” and the “pattern” Moses saw in terms of enthronement and the high priestly

actions (8:2-5; cf. 9:23; 10:1) and the two tents (9:1-14, 23-28). The two tents link with

high priestly actions and has spatiotemporal registers in which the Tabernacle both maps

out the earthly and the heavenly realms and the current and future ages, equating the true

tent with heaven itself. The way into the holy of holies, which represents the age to

come, is not yet open in chapter 9, but with Jesus’ sacrificial actions, Jesus’ followers are

exhorted to enter the sanctuary by his blood (10:19-25). This passage strongly resonates

with chapters 3-4 on the “house,” entering, approaching, having confidence, and the

merciful high priest, so that even if one initially reads chapters 3-4 as primarily a

“household” or Roman familia, by chapter 10 it has become the heavenly holy of holies.

Finally, 13:10-15 brings in the altar with tent language in connection with going “outside

the camp” and seeking the city to come (i.e., the heavenly Jerusalem; cf. 12:18-24).

The Multivalent House

While the theme of the sanctuary is developed in chapters 8-10, it may receive an

anticipatory glance in 3:3-6 as God’s “house,” which becomes a polyvalent term whose

initial connotations are as God’s sanctuary—God’s house is where God resides—but

soon switches to become a metaphor for Moses, the world, and Jesus’ followers. This

passage, which sets up the discussion of faithfulness and rest to follow, compares and

contrasts Jesus’ and Moses’ faithfulness in God’s “house”: “Being faithful to him who

appointed him just as Moses in [all] his house (ἐν [ὄλῳ] τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ)” (3:2). There is a

large consensus that this terminology in Heb. 3:3-6 should be read in terms of God’s
 367

“household,” making God much like a Roman paterfamilias, which also aligns with the

usage of “house” in the Hebrew Bible to refer to one’s lineage (e.g., “house of David” to

refer to the Davidic dynasty). This interpretation helps understanding this passage, but

the underlying associations with the temple as “God’s house” makes our understanding

even more complete. Hebrews takes the most common term for the sanctuary in the

Hebrew Bible and submerges that primary meaning, leaving it as subordinate to the

faithful community as the “household” of God in which God acts as the paterfamilias.

Nonetheless, the household needs a holy house, and this underlying understanding of

God’s house as the sanctuary reemerges in Hebrews 10 in which God’s house is equated

with the sanctuary, while the familial metaphor moves to the undercurrent.

While “house” alone can either mean a physical building or lineage, the

terminology “God’s house” or “house of YHWH” is the most consistent term in the

Hebrew Bible for the sanctuary and has very few other associations, whereas all other

terms are relatively scarce and have other associations—even ‫ מקדש‬does not always refer

to the sanctuary, but any sacred object, such as the tithe (Num. 18:29).1 In post-biblical

Hebrew, the prevalent term for the temple became “house of holiness.” In 1 Kings 6,

Solomon builds God’s “house” as is the case in 1 Chronicles 28, particularly 1 Chron.

28:10, where “house” and “sanctuary” are equated in the same line. Ezekiel’s ideal

temple is called a “house” and he is asked to describe this “house” (e.g. Ezek. 43:10). It

is also a “house of prayer” (Is. 56:1-8). It is a very old term for sanctuary: even Baal’s

temple in the Baal Cycle is a “house” (bht, bt). Hebrews shifts the language by having

1
Haran, “Temple and Community and Ancient Israel,” 17-18; idem, Temples and Temple Service, 13-15,
26-42.
 368

God speak of “my house,” but, nonetheless, the primary expected meaning of God’s

“house” is God’s sanctuary—even more than the term “sanctuary” itself.

Hebrews, while playing with terminology of a “household” with Moses’ and

Jesus’ roles within it as servant and son, simultaneously picks up on this sanctuary

meaning and will again use it as a synonym for the sanctuary in 10:19-22, in a passage

that highly resonates with this one. The comparison between Moses and Jesus, as servant

and son in God’s family, itself depends upon their activities in the earthly and heavenly

Tabernacles, where they mediate between God and God’s people. Moses met God in the

Tabernacle between the Cherubim (Exod. 25:22; 30:6; Lev. 1:1; Num. 7:89), an allusion

anticipating Jesus’ activities in the heavenly Tabernacle in chapters 8-9.

While both Moses and Jesus were faithful in the “house,” both meeting God in a

Tabernacle, the earthly for Moses and the heavenly for Jesus, the contrast between them

is emphasized in 3:5-6: “Moses, on the one hand, was faithful in all his house as a

servant to be a witness of things that were to be spoken of later, but Christ as a Son over

his house.” Moses as a faithful servant relies upon Num. 12:7-8. In Numbers God

contrasts Moses to the prophets, Aaron, and Miriam, to whom God speaks in dreams:

“not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak

mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in dark speech; and he beholds the form of the LORD.”

Hebrews closely paraphrases the LXX version of this passage:

Not so my servant Moses; in all my house he is faithful. (Numbers 12:7 LXX)

Now Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant. (Hebrews 3:5)
 369

Moses’ position of servant in God’s house indicates his exalted status: he is greater than

the prophets like Jesus as Son is greater than the prophets (Heb. 1:1-2).2 Moreover,

Moses’ faithfulness in God’s house is a rebuke against Aaron and Miriam, just as

Hebrews will proceed against the faithless desert generation. While God speaks in

visions and dreams to others, he speaks to Moses face-to-face. If God’s house is an

extended family of people, priests, and prophets, Moses is the most faithful, and the place

where Moses speaks to God face-to-face is literally in the “house”—that is, within the

sacred tent. It is a passage of rebuke and praise, exalting Moses above all others. Moses

is God’s faithful servant (θεράπων), a term that suggests more voluntary service than

δοῦλος would. Although Numbers uses Moses’ status as God’s faithful servant to exalt

him above all others, in Hebrews this exalted status is trumped only by a Son, who is

enthroned continually next to God rather than being one who meets God at his throne.

The contrast also involves the prepositions. Moses is “in” (ἐν) the house while

Jesus is “over” (ἐπί) it. This may involve a spatial metaphor for Moses’ and Jesus’

positions vis-à-vis God’s household, as one who is in charge rules “over” the house,

while a servant is “within”; at the same time, by foregrounding the Tabernacle, where

Moses mediates between the people and God, God meets Moses within the Tabernacle on

the throne, while in the Tent of Meeting (e.g., in the Numbers 12) God appears above the

tent. The author of Hebrews, evoking Numbers 12 already, may be subtly indicating that

Jesus’ position is equivalent to God speaking from above the tent. It would be

functionally equivalent of Jesus’ enthronement next to God; thus, when one approached

God in the tent on the throne, one approached the enthroned Christ next to God.

2
For a history of interpretation of this verse, see D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, 95-149.
 370

D’Angelo’s also reads 1 Chron. 17:14 as the background to this passage. If so, it

is secondary to Numbers 12, but may have explanatory value.3 1 Chron. 17:10-14 retells

Nathan’s oracle to David from 2 Sam. 7 in which David will not build the house (temple),

but God will build David’s house (lineage), playing on the ambiguity of the term of

“house” to mean temple or genealogy. The descendent of David, however, will build

God’s “house” (temple) for him. This is Solomon in Chronicles, but Hebrews may be

applying it to Jesus, who is considered David’s descendent. God will be his father and he

will be God’s son (cf. Heb. 1:5). And this son’s throne will be established forever (cf.

Heb. 1:8). Most importantly, God will set David’s son over, literally “in,” “his house”

forever. So God builds the house (1 Chron. 17:10; cf. Heb. 3:3-4), and David’s

descendent will be “over/in” that house (1 Chron. 17:14; Heb. 3:6). And the house is

both a temple and a people (1 Chron. 17:10; Heb. 3:6).

The Greek version of this passage emphasizes that the builder, the son, is “made

faithful,” but unequivocally “in” the house; nonetheless, Hebrews appropriates the

language of builder, God’s son, and faithful over/in God’s house to make Jesus as Son

and builder above Moses, the servant who is a part of the house itself.4 Hebrews deftly

sets up a comparison between two texts, playing 1 Chronicles 17 as applied to Jesus off

of Numbers 12 with regard to Moses, while, as in the Chronicles passage, exploiting the

ambiguity around “house” as both household and sanctuary.

3
D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, 69-93.
4
See the summary in D’Angelo, Moses and the Letter to the Hebrews, 76. Overall, D’Angelo (65-93) sees
1 Chron. 17:10-14 as the guiding framework in Heb. 3:1-6 through which the homilist reads 1 Sam. 2:35
(the faithful high priest) and Num. 12:7 (Moses as the faithful servant in God’s house).
 371

Even as Hebrews further stretches the meaning of “house,” these positions of

Moses “in” and Jesus “over” remain. The first move is the strangest: “For Jesus has

been deemed worthy of more glory than Moses, just as the builder of a house has more

honor than it” (3:3). Keeping the image of a house, Moses has become the house, and

Jesus the builder. Moses is “in” or just is the house, while Jesus remains above it as he

builds it. The language of “builder” keeps the reader thinking in terms of a physical

building—like the sanctuary—but making Moses the house itself pulls the reader into

thinking in terms of people. It seems a poorly expressed simile, but the catachresis of a

physical building with/as Moses keeps both aspects of “house” in play: it is the

sanctuary; it is Moses and the people. The simile conjoins both associations of “house”

with a series of correspondences: Jesus/Moses; Son/Servant; over/in; architect/building.

At the same time, it recalls Jesus’ role as creator. And so, Jesus as Son creates/builds the

house that he is “over”; Moses as servant is the house or part of the house that he is “in.”

Next, the “house” becomes “all things”: “For every house is built by someone,

but the builder of all things is God” (3:4). Moving from the jarring image of Jesus as the

“builder” of Moses, the text shifts to God as the builder of all. The house represents all

creation. This is a typical move if one keeps the sanctuary associations in mind, since the

sanctuary usually represents the cosmos.5 Solomon’s temple had creation and Edenic

imagery as the instructions and building of the Tabernacle (Exod. 25-31, 40) also mirrors

God’s creation in Gen. 1. To move from God’s house with a referent to the sanctuary to

“all things” is readily understandable since the sanctuary itself already represented the

5
E.g., Philo, Spec.Laws 1:66-67, 82-97; Josephus, War 5:184-237; Ant. 3:102-279; see Klawans, Purity,
Sacrifice, and the Temple, 111-28.
 372

cosmos in many circles, yet before Hebrews the idea of a temple in heaven and the

temple as the cosmos never clearly appears in the same document.

The final line of the text again relates the “house” to people: “We are the house,

if we hold fast our confidence and pride of hope” (3:6). Like the simile of builder and

house to relate Jesus and Moses, Jesus’ followers are the house, moving from the

sanctuary language that relates the temple to the cosmos to the familial language of

lineage and household—in short, balancing both meanings of “house” throughout. This

balanced exploitation of the semantic range of “house” to mean lineage, household, and

sanctuary has an important point that comes out in this line: Jesus’ followers are the

“house.” As the house of God they have become adopted into God’s family and become

imbued with the holiness of the sanctuary itself—that is, they have been sanctified.

This resembles the temple language applied to human communities in the Dead

Sea Scrolls and in Pauline letters.6 The Qumran sectarians described their community as

a temple. Some cite 4QFlor, which ambiguously speaks of a “temple of Adam,” often

thought to be the sectarian community, but which may refer to a real or idealized temple

building.7 More convincing evidence comes from the Community Rule (1QS 8:4-7, 8:8-

10, 9:3-6, 5:5-7; see also CD 3:18-4:10 and 1QpH 12:3). Here temple imagery involves

subtle layering of conceptions that resembles Hebrews. This work never uses the word

temple or sanctuary with regard to the community, although the terminology is used

elsewhere in the corpus, but it speaks of the “house.” While “house” can refer to the holy

6
Bertil Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative
Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1965). Cf. D’Angelo, Moses and the Letter to the Hebrews, 87-9.
7
Gaston, No Stone on Another, 163-8; Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 57-8; Wise,
“4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,” 107-110; Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 162-4.
 373

temple or the holy priestly lineage, both usages are in view,8 much like in the polyvalent

“house” in Nathan’s oracle and in Hebrews. This layering identifies the physical

structure and the community in order to indicate the holiness of that community. In fact,

the text discusses the holy house for Israel and the holy of holies of Aaron (1QS 8:5-6,

8:8-9, 9:6), identifying the graded holiness of the temple with the graded holy

genealogies of Israel in general and the high priestly lineage.

Paul similarly speaks of the community being the temple: “Do you not know that

you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s

temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and that temple you are” (1 Cor.

3:16-7; cf. 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; Rom. 8:9-11; Hermas, Sim. 9).9 The plural “you” becomes

the singular temple of God, literally “a” temple of the Holy Spirit. In the Deutero-

Pauline letter to the Ephesians, this imagery acquires more concrete dimensions: “So

then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the

stains and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles

and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is

joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into

it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:19-22; cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-5; see Ignatius,

Eph 9:1).10 Even though “household” instead of “house” is used, it quickly turns into a

temple structural metaphor, becoming a “holy temple in the Lord” of community that

gives primacy of place to Christ. Jesus is the cornerstone of the edifice and the members

8
See Donald Juel, Messiah and Temple (Missoula: Scholars Pres, 1977) 161-3.
9
Gaston, No Stone on Another, 177-9, 181-5.
10
Gaston, No Stone on Another, 188-94.
 374

of the community the rest of the stones. Moreover, Jesus and the Christian community

together form the dwelling-place, perhaps a literal translation of ‫ משכן‬or “Tabernacle.”

In Hebrews, likewise, “house” language with sanctuary undertones becomes a

metaphor for community. Associations of “house” subtly permutate, making “us” the

house of God, even as the primary referent of the sanctuary lingers and will remain

throughout the rest of Hebrews to reemerge in 10:22. In Hebrews, “we” and Moses

before are the “house” or sanctuary and in that respect imitate it in holiness. Since both

“we” and Moses are the house, and Jesus is its builder, Jesus remains “over” and Moses

“in” it. “House” is a readily adaptable image, balancing lineage/household and sanctuary

to apply to Moses, all things, and Jesus’ followers, resembling associations of the

sanctuary, which also use “house” and other sanctuary terminology, to speak of holy

lineages, symbolize the cosmos, and to represent a particular community.

The True Heavenly Tent and its Copies

Other than “house” (3:2-6; 10:22) and “sanctuary” (8:5; 10:19), in the largest

cluster of sanctuary references in chapters 8 and 9 the primary term is Tabernacle or

“tent.” Heaven is the archetypal holy tent that mirrors the earthly Tabernacle. As in the

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, language from Moses’ vision of the “pattern of the

Tabernacle” again comes into play to situate the heavenly Tabernacle. In the Songs the

“pattern” shifted in meaning to the “structure.” Moses did not see a plan, but saw the

heavenly sanctuary itself. This is also how Hebrews reads Exodus, quoting Exod. 25:40.

Hebrews applies the language of types, antitypes, shadows, and patterns to sacrificial

service in the respective earthly and heavenly sanctuaries (9:23) and to the law that
 375

prescribes it (10:1). In all of these instances, the illustrative shadows spatially and

temporally correspond to the true heavenly realities and things to come.

Heb. 8:1-5 ties Jesus’ enthronement with his ministry in the heavenly tent. After

being enthroned next to the “Great One in heaven,” the text calls Jesus “a minister of the

sanctuary and the true tent (τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργὸς καὶ τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληθινὴς)” which is

set up by the Lord and not by men (8:2). The term for “sanctuary” is τὰ ἁγία and is the

same term for the most holy place in 9:12. Except for Heb. 9:1-2, τὰ ἁγία always refers

to the most holy place, where the high priest/Jesus goes behind the curtain to offer

purification.11 This “sanctuary” is equated with the “true tent,” which, again, will occur

with these two terms in 9:11-12, where the “greater and more perfect tent” is equated

with the “holies” once again.

As God builds and prepares the heavenly city (11:10, 16), the Lord—not men,

i.e., Moses and his helpers—sets up the true tent. 9:11 and 9:24 clarify that the heavenly

tent is not made with hands, but is beyond this world (9:11) or is heaven itself (9:24).

The heavenly tent is not “in” heaven but “is” heaven, as is the city in Heb. 11:10, 13-16.

This observation that the Lord pitched the tent in which Jesus ministers,

introduces the discussion of Moses’ vision of the pattern of the Tabernacle:

These minister in a shadowy illustration (ὑποδείγµατι καὶ σκιᾷ) of heavenly

(things) (τῶν ἐπουρανίων), just as when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was
instructed, saying, “See that you make all according to the pattern (τὸν τύπον)
shown to you on the mountain.

Quoting Exod. 25:40, one of the reiterations of 25:9, this passage introduces three terms:

ὑπόδειγµα, σκιά, and τύπος. The first and second terms, translated as a hendiadys in

11
This is the typical understanding; see, e.g., Attridge, Hebrews, 233 n. 45, 240; Scholer, Proleptic Priests,
160; Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 145-7.
 376

“shadowy illustration,”12 are equivalent with one another and set against “heavenly

(things)” and the “pattern” or “type.” These notions are used throughout the epistle as

correspondences between earthly and heavenly realities and between past and present.

The past is a shadow of things to come.13 In this passage, both senses are operative.

In the Hebrew text the word ‫ תבנית‬appears twice in Exod 25:9 and again in 25:40.

The Greek text varies these two verses. The two usages in 25:9 become τὸ παράδειγµα or

“paradigm,” while 25:40 becomes τὸν τύπον or “type.” Hebrews quotes the latter,

although the “all” in Heb. 8:5 is supplied by the former.14 Moses’ vision of “all” is

inclusive and expansive to cover all aspects of the heavenly “type” and the earthly

“shadow”: the tent (8:5), all aspects of the cult (9:23), and its prescriptions in the law

(10:1).15 Moses saw and replicated all three.16

The earthly tent is a “shadowy illustration” of the heavenly sanctuary. The usage

of Exod. 25:40 that the “tent” was made according to the “type” aligning with the

introductory correspondence with “heavenly things” indicates that the “type” represents

heaven itself. Thus, the tent was modeled from the heavenly “type.”17 This explains the

selection of 25:40 rather than 25:9: “paradigm” is too reminiscent of the language that

12
See Hurst, Hebrews, 15-17; Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 117-21.
13
This is similar to Heb. 11:17-19, when speaking of Abraham’s past near-sacrifice of Isaac as a parable
for Jesus’ self-sacrifice, in the dual roles of high priest and sacrificial victim.
14
Cf. Philo, Leg. All. 3.103. For a discussion, see D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, 201-58.
15
See D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, 208-214.
16
Cf. Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 171-3.
17
Subsequent Christian authors would associate “type” more with the “shadow” of things to come rather
than the more perfect reality, in which biblical figures become “types” of Christ. In this subsequent usage,
“type” maintains its chronological priority, but loses its ontological priority.
 377

Hebrews reserves for copies, while “type” refers to heavenly things.18 In this sense, the

usage of this verse resembles the revaluation of ‫ תבנית‬in the Songs of the Sabbath

Sacrifice, in which it shifts from “pattern” to “structure,” or “the thing itself.”

This terminology is often adduced to demonstrate a Philonic or Platonic

background to the homily,19 yet whenever the homilist uses it, he does so in ways

incongruent with Plato’s and Philo’s usages with the exception of “shadow.” The use of

ὑπόδειγµα for “copy” or “illustration” is also significant when juxtaposed Exod. 25:40,

since in 25:9, which Hebrews does not quote, the term used for what Moses saw is the

related Greek term, παράδειγµα. Both Plato and Philo preferred παράδειγµα to ὑπόδειγµα

and used them to mean “pattern” or “model” of a thing to be executed, a precedent.20 But

it also can be derivative, such as a copy or model of an already existing thing, much like

ὑπόδειγµα is used in Hebrews.21 τύπος mostly means an “imprint” or “impress” of

something—Philo uses it as the copy, the impression made by the paradigmatic form

(e.g., Leg. All. 3.95-6; Vita 2.76)—the opposite sense it has in Hebrews. For Philo, the

“type” would be equivalent to Platonic “shadow,” as in his famous allegory (Rep. 7.514-

18
For Philo, the terminology is the opposite: “paradigm” is the original, whereas “typos” is an impression
made by the original (Leg. All 3.95-6; Vita 2.76). Yet the language is relational: the copy of one thing can
be the model for something else. See D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, 219-20, 224-5.
19
For a discussion of this terminology, see Hurst, Hebrews, 13-41.
20
E.g., Timaeus 29b; see Hurst, Hebrews, 13, 137 nn. 52-3.
21
Liddel and Scott, “paradeigma” and “hypodeigma.” Hurst, Hebrews, 14-6, argues that the “hypodigm” is
something to be copied—it has precedence. I can accept Hurst’s translation as “sketch” and the temporal
sequencing, but it is the “sketch” of the thing that Moses saw, the true heavenly reality—as such, it remains
derivative. Hurst sees the term as reflecting Ezek. 40:2-4, 42:15 (OG), that the “hypodigm” is the ideal
sanctuary shown to Ezekiel. The difficulty with this interpretation is that it disregards that antecedent of
“hypodigm” in Hebrews is what the earthly priesthood serves, and that it is counterposed to the heavenly
sanctuary rather than being the heavenly sanctuary itself. The intuition to turn to Ezekiel is perceptive and
may have been in the mind of the homilist, but he has not overturned the derivative aspect of “hypodigm.”
It is a derived sketch of heavenly realities made available in “these last days.” It can be a “copy,” just not a
Platonic copy. See Attridge, Hebrews, 219 n. 41; Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 118.
 378

17), while for Hebrews they are antitheses. Thus, the specific choice of the verse with

“type” rather than “paradigm” may be significant, particularly since in Hebrews type is

associated with the original and the paradigm/hypodigm the derivative.

The language of type, antitype, and pattern/paradigm all can be found in the

Exodus 25 LXX, with the Tabernacle modeled off of the heavenly “type” or “pattern,”

reinterpreted as in the Songs as “structure.” Hebrews has taken Moses’ vision of the

“pattern” on Sinai, set the “pattern” as τύπος against the copies and shadows to make

what Moses saw the thing itself, the heavenly reality that mirrors the earthly, like the

Songs had already done without any Platonic resonances. Yet Hebrews does something

un-Platonic with this language: it is not just ontological or spatial, but temporal.

This language persists in Hebrews. Just as the tent in which Jesus ministers is the

“true tent,” “heavenly,” and the “type” Moses saw to model his “shadowy illustration,” so

the priestly rites also correspond in terms of copy and shadow:

And so it is necessary that the copies of heavenly things (τὰ µὲν ὑποδείγµατα τῶν
έν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) to be purified by these [rites], but the heavenly things themselves
by better sacrifices than these. (Heb. 9:23)

“These” refer to general priestly duties (9:6), the high priestly day of atonement ritual

(9:7-10), and Moses’ sealing of the first covenant with blood (9:18-22). Once again,

“copy” as ὑπόδειγµα is counter-posed with “heavenly things,” making the earthly rites in

the earthly temple all “copies” of the heavenly events.

So far, this largely spatial language has been consistent in mirroring ὑποδείγµατα

to its corresponding heavenly reality. In the subsequent verse (9:24), the author

introduces additional terminology:

For Christ has entered not a handmade sanctuary (οὐ γὰρ εἰς χειροποίητα εἰσῆλθεν
ἅγια Χριστός), a copy of the true one (ἀντίτυπα τῶν άληθινῶν), but into heaven
 379

itself (ἀλλ’ εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν), now to appear in the presence of God on our
behalf.

The handmade “holies” (cf. 9:11) is also a “copy” (ἀντίτυπα) or “antitype,” which is

contrasted with the “true one” and “heaven itself.” The antitypical “copy” is the

handmade sanctuary, the one erected by humans according to the pattern of the true one,

which, as discovered in 8:5, is what Moses saw. While much of this language is the

same, including the general structural positions between copy and original or “true one,”

which picks up the language of “true tent” from 8:1, the word for “copy” has shifted from

ὑπόδειγµα to ἀντίτυπα. This term is the counterpart to the earlier word for what Moses

saw, τύπος, as picked up from Exod. 25:40. Together the two passages create consistent

cosmological conceptions, making the earthly handmade sanctuary the “antitype” to the

true, heavenly “type” Moses saw and from which he modeled his “shadowy illustration.”

In addition making the different terms for copy and true, heavenly realities align even

more exactly, this passage identifies this heavenly tent, the “true” tent, and the “type” as

heaven itself. This retrospectively has an important unspoken implication for the

“antitype” or “copy”: the earthly tent is patterned off of heaven itself, and, therefore, all

of the heavenly things: the throne, the city, and rest. The sanctuary becomes a

condensing symbol for all that is heavenly and holy in space and time.

Finally, just as the temple and its rites are spoken of in terms of copies and true

heavenly realities, so is the law that prescribes the rites:

For since the law (only) has a shadow of the good things to come (Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων
ὁ νόµος τῶν µελλόντων ἀγαθῶν), not the form itself of these realities (οὐκ αὐτὴν
τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγµάτων), it can never by the same sacrifices where are offered
continually perfect those who draw near. (Heb. 10:1)
 380

Those who draw near are the priests who approach to make sacrifices in the sanctuary.

The law that prescribes these sacrifices cannot perfect. Like the earthly tent, it is a

“shadow.” “Shadow” corresponds to a new term for the heavenly realm: “form.” This

word may seem familiar from Plato, but Plato uses it in the opposite manner: an εἰκών is

an “image” of the “paradigm” rather than the world of forms/ideas.22 Hebrews

consistently uses terms familiar from Plato and Philo in very un-Platonic ways, reversing

their positions. The “form itself” is the heavenly world, the true tent, the “type.” The

shadow is equivalent to the copies, the “antitype.”

It heightens this un-Platonic usage when it turns an ontological conception of true

realities, or the “form itself” and its earlier primarily spatial usages, into a temporal

correspondence. The correspondence is no longer just heaven and earth, but past and

future. The past law is a “shadow” of “good things to come,” which is the “form itself.”

The “antitype” or “shadow” temporally precedes the “type” or “form.” This temporality

appears in 9:11 when “Christ appeared as the high priest of the good things that have

come.” This verse has a strongly attested variant of “good things to come” mirroring

10:1. According to Bruce Metzger, “have come” is preferred due to age and diversity of

text type with 10:1 influencing copyists in 9:11 in transmission.23 Nonetheless, Christ’s

appearance and his ritual activities in the heavenly sanctuary are the “good things to

come / that have come.” The temporal ambivalence reflects a larger ambivalence in that

Jesus has already enacted his purification activities, but the audience has yet to enter the

22
Plato, Crat. 306e; Tim. 29b, 48e-49a; Rep. 7.515-7; Philo Leg. All. 3.96; De Abr. 3f; Hurst, Hebrews, 19-
20.
23
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) 598.
 381

rest and sanctuary, and draw near to the throne and God.24 The end has been initiated,

but its fullness is not yet expressed. Most importantly, when speaking of the earthly

versus its heavenly type, there is a temporal element of shadow and things to come.

The old rites under the old covenant discussed in spatial terms (9:23-4) also have

a temporal element in that the priests engaged in the antitypical activities before Jesus

entered the true tent and performed the heavenly rites of the type. This may not mean

that when Moses saw the type and made a shadowy copy that the true tent did not yet

exist, but, like the exemplars of faith who saw the heavenly city only from afar, Moses

only saw the type of the tent from afar, as something that might have already existed, but

to which he had no access “apart from us” or until “today” when Christ appeared and

performed his heavenly sacrifice in the heavenly temple, the true tent, heaven itself.

Hebrews has turned expressions that in other contexts have primarily ontological

meaning and spatial resonances into ones with ontological, spatial, and temporal

dimensions. Heaven, the true tent, the “form itself,” corresponds to the antitype, the

hypodigm, and shadow of these realities. The earthly tent, rites, and law correspond

spatially and temporally to both heavenly and future realities, playing with both

dimensions characteristic of Jewish apocalyptic.25 It is the location of Jesus’ sacrifice in

the true heavenly tent that guarantees its efficaciousness, its ability to perfect, by contrast

to the temporally earlier copied rites in the antitypical tent.

24
See Schenck (Cosmology and Eschatology, 78-80), where he discusses the temporal/topical sequences.
25
Hurst (Hebrews, 13-41) has provided a corrective to those who discount the eschatological temporal
element of these terms. While at times he seems to go too far the other way, he ultimately concludes that to
interpret spatial to the exclusion of temporal or vice versa in these terms does unnecessary damage (22-24).
 382

Two Tents: The Spacetime of the Tabernacle

Just as the terminology surrounding the Tabernacle, its rites, and its prescriptions

in the nexus of sanctuary, priesthood, and covenant/law operate on both spatial and

temporal levels, so there is heightened spatiotemporal layering in the description of two

tents in Hebrews 9. The two tents acquire multivalent connotations throughout the

discussion. At first they are the earthly first and second tents; namely, the holy and most

holy places. Then they switch from spatial to temporal registers, like “rest” does in 3:7-

4:11, symbolizing the current age and the age to come. Concurrently, when the

“sanctuary” (τὰ ἁγία) counters the first tent, equating the first tent with the “current

season,” it suggests that the removal of the first tent for total access to the second tent and

turns the first tent into this realm and the second tent into the heavenly realm. In short,

the first tent is the current age and the current age is characterized by lack of access to the

heavenly holy of holies with only the mediation of the yearly high priestly activities;

while the second tent is the age to come, which is characterized by access to the heavenly

sanctuary by the blood of Jesus (10:19-25). Since Jesus has already accomplished this,

there is a temporal ambiguity between the current age and the age to come, as both ages

overlap in the audience’s present. The “current age” is, therefore, the past and now,

while the “age to come” is both now and to come.

After speaking of the obsolescence of the first covenant (8:6-13), the author turns

to the prescriptions for worship and the sanctuary belonging to that covenant, the “earthly

sanctuary” (τὸ τε ἅγιον κοσµικόν) (9:1). This earthly sanctuary is the Tabernacle or tent

with two tents. These two tents and their relationship to one another will set the pattern

for the subsequent set of correspondences of current and future, earthly and heavenly.
 383

The author discusses the regulations for the worship of the “earthly sanctuary,” beginning

with the cultic implements of the “first tent” (σκηνὴ ἡ πρώτη), including the lampstand,

the table, and the bread of the Presence (Heb. 9:1-5). This first tent is the “holy place”

(Ἅγια). The other tent stood behind the second curtain (µετὰ δὲ τὸ δεύτερον

καταπέτασµα), the Holy of Holies (Ἅγια Ἁγίων), which has the golden altar of incense

and the representation of God’s throne on earth, the ark, which contains manna and

Aaron’s budding staff, the tablets of the covenant, and “the cherubim of glory

overshadowing the mercy seat” (9:5). These implements and aspects of the mercy seat

(the divine throne) follow the pattern that Moses saw in Exodus 25:17-22, except that the

incense altar is out of place—it belongs to the holy place (Exod. 30:6). Hebrews may be

confusing this with “purely salted” mixture (Exod. 30:34-38), which does have a strong

relationship with the most holy place, as also found in the Songs.

The next segment discusses the activities appropriate to each tent (9:6-8),

depicting the bustle of priests coming in and out of the first tent, although in reality their

primary activity would be outside this tent at the altar (not discussed in this section, but

only in 13:10-11). The author is vague on the ritual duties of the first tent, but becomes

more interested in the second tent, where only the high priest goes once a year—the

author interestingly never explicitly names the Day of Atonement—offering blood for

himself and for the people, and purifying the sanctuary itself (9:23).

At this point the author begins to layer new meanings upon “first” and “second”

tents. Not only is the two-part tent spatial, but has temporal significance (Heb. 9:8-9):

By this the Holy Spirit signifies that the way into the sanctuary (τὴν τῶν ἁγίων
ὁδόν) has not yet appeared as long as the first tent remains standing, which is
symbolic for the present season (ἥτις παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα).
 384

Since the way has not yet been disclosed, the ritual activities of the tent cannot purify the

conscience, but only the body. The use of “first” and “second” for the two tents allows

for a smooth transition into sequential, temporal language; thus, the oft-used translation

of “outer” and “inner” masks this transition. The buffer of the first tent between the

worshipers and the second tent represents the present age, literally a “parable” for the

current season. In Hebrews, “parable” only appears again in 11:19, when Abraham

received Isaac back, making him a “parable” for resurrection. This current season

contrasts with the age to come (6:5; cf. 2:5). With the present circumstances, the way to

the sanctuary (i.e., the holy of holies) is not yet open; there is no access to the age to

come, which by implication is signified by the “second tent.” The two tents, therefore,

on a literal level are the first tent of the holy place and the second tent of the most holy

place, but, figuratively speaking, signify the current and future ages. The definition of

those ages depends upon their relative access to God. Once the barrier of the first tent,

the current age, is removed, access will be granted to more than just one priest once a

year to enter the second tent, the holy of holies, the age to come.

That access in the age to come is not to the earthly second tent, but to the

heavenly tent, or heaven itself. While the first tent stands, the way into the sanctuary

(i.e., the heavenly holy of holies) is not yet opened, but,

When Christ appeared as high priest of the good things that have come by a
greater and more perfect tent not handmade, that is, not of this creation, neither by
the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood he entered once and for all
into the sanctuary, securing eternal redemption. (Heb. 9:11-12)

As noted, the manuscript tradition strongly attests both “have come” and “to come” with

preference given to “have come.” Christ has already performed his self-sacrifical ritual

activities in the more perfect tent, the one not of this creation; nonetheless, this appears to
 385

contradict the law being a shadow of the good things to come in 10:1. Yet the perfect

tense is difficult given that the way into the sanctuary is not yet open (9:8). This

ambivalence speaks to the liminal time of the early Christians, when Jesus had already

enacted purification and had made the way into the sanctuary potentially accessible, but it

is not fully accessible either as long as the “outer tent” stands. This may be a subtle

glimpse into the historical situation of Hebrews as a post-destruction document—after 70

CE the “first tent” was no longer standing. This passage might be interpreting the

destruction of the temple as the harbinger of Jesus’ imminent second coming, when he

will save those eagerly awaiting his arrival, so they may fully enter the heavenly

sanctuary (9:28).

Finally, this passage introduces the last set of correspondences between the two

tents: between the earthly tent (9:1) and the greater and more perfect tent not of this

creation (9:11); one made with hands (9:1-5) and one not made with hands (9:11), which

is heaven itself (9:24). The two tents are a multivalent symbol in which the language of

“first” and “second” carries spatial, temporal, and cosmic significance. They are the

outer and inner tents of the earthly sanctuary and the current age and the age to come, yet

the age to come is also now, since Jesus has already enacted his eternal atonement with

his own blood (9:11-14, 23-28), the harbinger of “good things that have come” and “to

come.” The age to come, moreover, is characterized by access to the second tent, making

the final set of correspondences between the first earthly tent and the second more perfect

tent that is heaven itself, one set up by the term “earthly tent” at the beginning of the

entire passage (9:1) to be contrasted with the tent “not of this creation” (9:11) and

“heaven itself” (9:24). Indeed, “good things that have come” is a smooth reading,
 386

because by chapter 10 access has been granted. Just as Christ entered the more perfect

tent (9:11-15, 23-28), so his followers are enjoined to enter the “sanctuary” (10:19-25).

While the earthly high priests could not purify consciences, but only bodies;

Christ’s sacrifice purifies the conscience (9:14), sanctifies, and perfects (10:14). It also

opens the way into the sanctuary, enabling access into the heavenly holy of holies:

Having, therefore, confidence, siblings, to enter into the sanctuary (εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον
τῶν ἁγίων) by the blood of Jesus, he has opened for us the new and living way
(ἐνεκαίνισεν ἡµῖν ὁδὸν πρόσφατον καὶ ζῶσαν) through the curtain, that is his flesh,
and having a great high priest over the house of God (ἱερέα µέγαν ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον
τοῦ θεοῦ), let us draw near (προσερχώµεθα) with a true heart in full assurance of
faith with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies
washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without
wavering, for he who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stir up one
another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of
some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing
near. (10:19-25; adapted from RSV)

This passage, which is introduced by high priestly and enthronement language, lays out

the implications of Jesus’ actions. Just as Jesus entered the greater and more perfect tent

(9:11), his followers, sanctified and purified, can enter the sanctuary (10:19). Whereas

“the way into the sanctuary” (τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδόν) had yet to be disclosed (9:8) since the

first tent remained, here (10:20) Christ has “opened a new and living way” (ἐνεκαίνισεν

ἡµῖν ὁδὸν πρόσφατον καὶ ζῶσαν), with both passages using τὰ ἅγια. The way has been

revealed and opened, and just as Jesus passed through the curtain (6:19-20), they can pass

through the curtain (10:20), which is Jesus’ own broken flesh. Access is enabled by

Christ’s blood through Christ’s flesh. His flesh is the curtain because he is the means by

which one enters the inner sanctum, which given the correspondences in chapter 9, stands

between the current and future ages and between earth and heaven.
 387

This passage also recombines 3:1-4:16, while 4:14-16 had already recapitulated

much of 2:17-3:6. Jesus’ role as a “great high priest” (4:14; 10:21) not only allows one to

“enter the sanctuary” but relates this with confidence (4:16; 10:19). This passage

reintroduces the term “God’s house” as found in 3:1-6: “since we have a great high priest

over the house of God” resembles 2:17, 3:6, and 4:14, reweaving these verses into a new

articulation. The text elaborates upon earlier exhortations to enter and approach in a new,

extended discussion: they have “confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of

Christ” (10:19). Parallel to “let us draw near” in 4:14 and “enter the sanctuary” (10:19),

the addressee is exhorted in the same breath, “let us draw near.” Thus the exhortation is

the same as in 4:14//7:20//7:25 (προσερχώµεθα//ἐγγίζοµεν) while juxtaposed with

entering from 4:11//9:12 (εἰσερχώµεθα//εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον). The ability to draw near is

related to being “sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” and being “washed with pure

water.” This could refer to baptism or metaphoric priestly purification ablutions (or

baptism reinterpreted in terms of priestly ablutions necessary to “draw near” in the

sanctuary), but it also picks upon the cleansing of the conscience in 9:9, 14. Such total

purification is necessary to approach God on the throne.26

The next line draws in the next web of interrelated terms: “Let us hold fast the

confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful” (10:23). This

picks up on several themes in the hortatory passages: holding fast, the confession, the

promises, and faithfulness. The passage immediately preceding the exhortation to enter

God’s Sabbath rest calls Jesus the “high priest of our confession (3:1) and claims, “And

we are his house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope” (3:6). Jesus again

26
The Qumran community performed washings to remain ritually pure in the angelic presence.
 388

is the “faithful high priest” (2:17) and “Christ was faithful over God’s house as a son”

(3:6). It also picks up the themes of the exhortation to approach God’s throne (4:14-16).

Because of the faithful high priest who has passed through the heavens, “let us hold fast

our confession” (4:14). In this way, 10:23 both reiterates and expands the exact phrase

from 4:14, the “hope” from 3:6 (cf. 6:19-20), a “better hope” “through which we draw

near to God” (7:19). It becomes “our confession of hope.”

The “promise” or “he who promised” (10:24) comes from the passage

sandwiched in between God’s house and God’s throne—namely, God’s Sabbath rest. It

is when and where the “promise of entering his rest remains” (4:1). Connected with this,

the promises are related to Abraham (6:9-20). They are the “promised eternal

inheritance” (9:15), and this line anticipates the promise of the heavenly homeland

(11:13-16, 39-40). The promise given by God and Jesus to Abraham and all the faithful

is tied to the Sabbath, the sanctuary, and the heavenly homeland.

The passage then shifts to mutual exhortations to do good works, love, meeting

together, and general encouragement while the “Day” draws near—the eschatological

“day” is the “other day” when one enters God’s Sabbath rest (4:8) and, in chapter 10,

God’s Sanctuary. This draws on the themes of Heb. 3:7-4:13: “But exhort one another

every day, as long as it is called ‘today,’ that none of you may be hardened by the

deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to

the end” (3:13-14). Again confidence is an important term, but mutual exhortation is

something the author discusses at this point regarding rest “today” and later with the

sanctuary and as the “day” draws near. All serve the purpose of exhorting the hearers to

remain faithful and not fall away “in these last days” (1:2).
 389

The exhortation to draw near to God by entering the heavenly sanctuary reiterates,

combines, and expands the previous discussions of Jesus’ faithfulness in God’s house

(2:17-3:6), entering the Sabbath (3:7-4:13), approaching the throne (4:14-16), and Jesus’

purifying activities in the heavenly holy of holies (9:1-14, 23-28)—obtaining Abraham’s

promised eternal inheritance and expressing the call to faithfulness through the cultic

language of drawing near and entering, draws together through dense intratextual

interreferences of the promises, entering/drawing near, mutual exhortation, and the

nearing Day the priestly codependent symbols of Sabbath and Sanctuary (“house,”

“throne,” and “sanctuary”), both of which layer spatial and temporal dimensions.

This dense assemblage of intratextual references between the Sabbath rest passage

(3:7-4:13), its framing (3:1-6; 4:14-16) and the sanctuary (10:19-25) as well as the spatial

and temporal layering of the two tents (9:1-14), which is only matched by the spatial and

temporal play of the Sabbath rest (3:7-4:11), is the apex of sanctuary spacetime imagery

in Hebrews, but there is one additional retrospective echo in 13:10-14:

We have an altar from which those serving the tent (οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες) have
no right to eat, for the bodies of the animals whose blood is brought into the
sanctuary (εἰς τὰ ἅγια) are burned outside the camp. So too Jesus suffered outside
the gate to sanctify the people by his own blood. Therefore let us go forth
(ἐξερχώµεθα) to him outside the camp and bear his disgrace. For we have no
lasting city here, but we seek one to come (οὐ γὰρ ἔχοµεν ὧδε µένουσαν πλολιν
ἀλλὰ τὴν µέλλουσαν ἐπιζητοῦµεν).

Occasionally, chapter 13 is considered an appended section to Hebrews, but whether it is

or is not, it picks up on some important themes. It uses the language of “tent” and

“sanctuary,” here for the earthly sanctuary (cf. 9:1-5). This is the only time, however,

that a sacrificial altar (θυσιαστήριον) is mentioned, and this altar is contrasted with the

earthly tent and sanctuary, because “we” have it and the priests who minister in the
 390

earthly tent do not. It is unclear if this “altar” refers to the Eucharist (since we eat from

it), is a symbol of access to the heavenly realm, both of these things, or something else.

The greater difficulty comes next, when Jesus suffers outside the camp, and the

author exhorts “Let us go forth to him outside the camp.” Jesus’ suffering has mostly

been discussed in terms of bringing his own blood into the heavenly sanctuary, but also in

terms of suffering on the cross (12:1-2). This passage resembles the more earthly

suffering from chapter 12 rather than the heavenly sacrifice of chapters 8-10, yet still uses

the terminology of “sanctifying” (2:11; 10:14). This is sometimes discussed in terms of

the “red heifer” purification ritual, but most explicitly refers to sending off the remains of

the bull and goat used in the Day of Atonement rituals “outside the camp” in the Priestly

conception of the Tabernacle (Lev. 16:27). While before Jesus is compared and

contrasted with the animals in the Day of Atonement ceremony, now he is equated with

the disposed carcass, which is brought outside the camp where he suffered; thus,

Hebrews interprets the Day of Atonement ritual loosely to align it more closely with

Jesus’ place of suffering. The sacrificial location presents an awkward fit with all of the

previous discussion occurring in a heavenly Tabernacle. How can Jesus purify “up” in

the heavenly Tabernacle if he is being disposed of “outside the camp”? Hebrews

conflates Jesus’ suffering outside the city gates with carcass-disposal outside the camp

and the atoning sacrifice within the holy of holies on the mercy seat. In this sleight of

hand, Hebrews opposes “outside the camp” to the “tent” from 13:10 and identifies it with

the more perfect tent not made with hands from 9:11-12.

Going outside the camp appears to contrast the heavenward direction of drawing

near to the throne and God (4:14-16; 7:20, 25; 10:22), entering God’s rest and sanctuary
 391

(4:11; 10:19), and coming to the heavenly Jerusalem (10:22). The term uses the same

root verb, but exiting (ἐξερχώµεθα) instead of entering (εἰσερχώµεθα) and approaching

(προσερχώµεθα). This outward movement, like the call to approach the throne, enter the

sanctuary, and endure abuse (12:3-17) is also an act of imitation, imitating Jesus’ own

suffering and disgrace (12:1-2; 13:12).

The directional incongruence may depend upon a tension within the Pentateuch.

The Tabernacle is the priestly projection of Solomon’s temple upon the Tent of Meeting.

The Pentateuch, however, allows the non-priestly Tent of Meeting to stand alongside the

Tabernacle. As noted, they differ in important ways: the Tabernacle has the mercy-seat

in addition to the ark, indicating God’s throne, whereas the Tent of Meeting only has the

ark; God’s Glory dwells within the Tabernacle, but God meets Moses outside the Tent of

Meeting; and the Tabernacle is centrally located within the camp, but the Tent of Meeting

is located outside the camp. Hebrews, therefore, may be playing with this tension within

the Pentateuch, identifying the tent as both within and without the camp. In that way,

“going forth” outside the camp and “entering” the sanctuary may be functionally

equivalent phrases: going forth outward is entering the heavenly sanctuary or city.

While perhaps being equivalent, they are sequential: in order to enter the

sanctuary, one must first exit the camp with imitation being a key unifying ingredient.

Just as Jesus entered the sanctuary (ch. 9), so we enter the sanctuary (ch. 10); just as Jesus

suffered (ch. 12), so we suffer (ch. 13). Hebrews has worked backwards from Jesus’

glorious exaltation, climaxing with our own ability to enter and approach, but finishing

off with what must be endured to do this.

 392

The exhortation to go out and endure abuse again introduces both spatial and

temporal dimensions, again layering multiple meanings onto a single image. There is no

lasting city “here,” but “we seek a city to come.” The earthly “here” and the “camp”

become equivalent. The camp and the city to come have become the opposing terms

(like shadow and true tent). The language of city recalls chapters 11 and 12. Abraham

looked forward to a city built by God (11:7) and all the faithful were “exiles and strangers

on the earth” seeking a heavenly homeland, so God prepared a city for the faithful

(11:13-16). This is the heavenly Jerusalem, which is Mount Zion, and the “city of the

living God” (12:22-24). And “we have come” (προσεληλύθατε) to this city (12:22). The

“city to come” also picks up on the “world to come” (2:5) and the “age to come” (6:5)

which resonates again with the first tent being of the current age (9:9), implying the

second tent is the age to come. The city to come, then, picks up on all these heavenly

referents: it is the heavenly homeland, already tied to the Sabbath rest, the heavenly

sanctuary, the heavenly Jerusalem, and the age/world to come. In order to enter it, one

must exit something else, i.e., this age, this world, the first tent, and now, the camp.

“Here” in the “camp” we have no lasting city for two reasons: like the faithful,

we are exiles and strangers upon the earth (11:13-16), and all things of this creation will

not last, but will be destroyed and shaken (1:11-12; 12:26-29). If Hebrews is post-

destruction, the no remaining city here and enduring heavenly city may be an important

consoling point in the destruction of Jerusalem waning in the waxing of so-called “eternal

city” of Rome. Jesus’ obedient followers are called to participate in the same pattern of

suffering and exaltation. In order to draw near to God and approach the throne with

confidence, one must not fall away like the faithless desert generation, but maintain the
 393

faith like the hall of the faithful, endure suffering, go outside the camp. Going outside

the camp is a symbol of suffering or willingness to endure it. Failure leads to

disobedience and faithlessness, and not being able to enter the heavenly city.

Conclusion

Sanctuary imagery, whether called a “house,” “sanctuary,” or “tent,” has proven a

rich reservoir for the homilist to create multilayered images. All the passages relate to

high priestly purifications (3:2-6; 8:2-5; 9:1-28; 10:19-25; 13:10-14) and sometimes are

introduced by enthronement (8:2-5; 10:19-25). The “house,” which introduces the

passage on Sabbath rest is the house of God, the most common term for the temple, but it

is also the universe, Moses himself, and Jesus’ followers. The tent sets up the cosmology

of Hebrews, between copies, shadows, antitypes and the true tent, heaven itself, and the

figure itself, reading the Pentateuch in ways reminiscent of the Songs of the Sabbath

Sacrifice. These correspondences proved to be both spatial and temporal and spread into

the other aspects of the sanctuary. The exposition of the two tents (9:1-14) proved a

multiplex image for the first and second earthly tents, the current and future ages, and the

earthly and heavenly tents or earth itself and heaven itself. Concurrently, Jesus’ sacrifice

in the more perfect tent provides the way for his followers to enter it (10:19-25) in a

passage that employs dense intratextual references back to the “house,” “rest,” and the

“throne” (2:17-4:16). The spatiotemporal correspondences aid in understanding 13:10-14.

Here the antinomies remain earthly (tent, sanctuary, camp) and heavenly (altar, city), at

the same time as temporal (the city is the one to come). This heightened spatiotemporal
 394

layering is only matched and preceded by the Sabbath rest passage in 3:7-4:11, which

reinterprets the space of promised land as the time of the Sabbath.

The enduring heavenly Tabernacle of rest, or heaven as a Tabernacle, condenses

the heavenly imagery of sanctuary, Sabbath, throne, and city as they become alternative

ways of referring to one another. As the true reality that Moses saw, it becomes an

enduring, unshakable hope in the face of earthly transience and suffering in the wake of

the destruction of the temple and in the Roman context that continually reminded one of

that destruction by the fiscus Iudaicus, the Colosseum, the Flavian triumph, the Arch of

Titus, and the Temple of Peace. In contrast to this earthly powerful city and its temples,

which will be shaken, the suffering of Jesus emulated by his followers, provides access to

an unshakable heavenly city, the heavenly rest, and the enduring Tabernacle that precedes

creation and succeeds destruction; it is not made with hands and, therefore, not destroyed

by hands. While seeing the Jerusalem temple implements in the Temple of Peace, one

awaits entrance into the heavenly Tabernacle and the heavenly Sabbath. One must,

however, not fall away and actually enter and approach as exhorted.

Excursus: Exhortations of Heavenly Priestly Service

While the elements of creation, enthronement, Sabbath, and the sanctuary are tied

through intratextual resonances and linkages, entwining them by developing them

concurrently or echoing one while developing another, they are also aligned by the

actions of entering (εἰσέρχοµαι) and drawing near (προσέρχοµαι). These actions denote

access to the heavenly Sabbath, throne, sanctuary, and city and, thereby, to God. These

terms are the LXX translation of the cultic language for priests who draw near (‫ קרב‬and
 395

‫ )ניגש‬and enter (-‫ )בא ב‬the sanctuary, making Jesus’ followers priests in the footsteps of

the great high priest.27

In the Hebrew Bible, while this language can generally regard a foreigner

(literally “proselyte”) who “comes near” and dwells among the people (e.g., Exod. 12:48;

Lev. 19:33; Num 9:14), it tends to be cultic. It can be used for the general assembly of

Israelites who draw near to the tent (e.g. Exod. 16:9; 34:32; Num. 10:3-4), but more

exclusively to priests drawing near the altar (Lev. 9:7ff; 21:16, 21, 23; 22:3; cf. Num.

16:40; 18:3, 22; Ezek. 44:16) and less often to the table of the showbread (Lev. 21:17, 21;

Ezek. 44:16) and the altar of incense (Lev. 10:3, 405; 16:1; Num. 16:40).28 In LXX

usage, drawing near is exclusively used for the altar and the outer tent; never for entering

the holy of holies, maintaining a clear distinction between outer “drawing near” and inner

“entering.”29 Nonetheless, only the high priest could approach the “throne” of the mercy-

seat. At first, only Moses could “draw near” to God (Exod. 24:1-2) and “enter” the cloud

where God was (Exod. 24:18). Then only the high priest could enter the holy of holies,

which reenacted Moses entering the cloud (Lev. 16:2, 17, 23). “Entering,” therefore,

refers to the entrance of the high priest into the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement.

This language recurs throughout Hebrews. “Today” the listeners are exhorted to

“strive to enter” God’s Sabbath rest (4:11), and while exhorted to “hold fast to the

confession” (4:14), they are encouraged to “draw near” to the throne (4:16). In the

context of the sanctuary, they are called to “enter” (εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον) (10:19), “draw near”

27
See Scholer, Proleptic Priests.
28
For these terms’ cultic usages in the LXX, see Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 91-5, 150-53.
29
Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 93-4.
 396

(10:22) and “hold fast” (10:13). They are enabled to do this by Jesus’ sacrifice, being

perfected by it, acting in ways only priests and the high priest previously could. Just as

Jesus “entered” εἰσῆλθεν (6:19-20; 9:12, 24), so his followers “enter” (10:19). Jesus acts

as a mediator so that the auditors can draw near (ἐγγίζοµεν τῷ θεῷ) to God (7:19, 25).

Although in 7:19 a different term is used, it is equivalent to προσέρχεσθαι (Exod. 19:22

LXX).30 The language of priestly cultic activities of the priests is being appropriated and

made more broadly accessible to Jesus’ obedient followers.31 They have also come

(προσεληλύθατε) to the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22) rather than to the touchable Mount

Sinai (12:18-21), where Moses had his vision of the heavenly tent. Drawing near to the

throne of grace and coming to the heavenly Jerusalem are ways of expressing drawing

near to God as denotations of proximity to God’s presence. The implication is that the

hearers have not come to the earthly, material mountain where Moses had his vision of

the heavenly type, but into the heavenly type—the heavenly Sabbath, the heavenly tent,

the heavenly city—the very reality that Moses saw, but never entered himself.32

Other figures also “draw near” in Hebrews. Priests in their daily sacrifices are

“those who draw near” (τοὺς προσερχοµένους) (10:1) just as Jesus’ followers are (7:25),

but Jesus’ perfected followers draw near to the heavenly throne rather than the earthly

altar. More positively, Enoch also drew near to God (τὸν προσερχόµενον τῷ θεῷ) (11:6),

which may rely upon traditions of Enoch as a priestly figure alongside the famous

30
Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 118-9.
31
Cf. Peterson (Hebrews and Perfection, 78-9), who deemphasizes cultic overtones as much as he can,
particularly with regard to 7:20, 25 and 11:6. He cannot deny, however, the cultic context of 4:14-16 and
10:19-22. Scholer (Proleptic Priests, 113-24) has demonstrated the cultic context of these instances.
32
See Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 137-48.
 397

statement that he walked with God (Gen. 5:24).33 Likewise, priests “enter” the outer tent

(9:6) and the high priest enters the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement (9:7, 25) in

contrast to Jesus who entered the true tent once-and-for all (6:19-20; 9:11-12, 24).

In addition to this heavenward, inward movement is a lone instance of “going

forth” (ἐξέρχοµαι) outside the camp (13:13). It is a significant passage that links up with

the heavenly city, which indicates that to reach the heavenly city one must also go and

endure suffering outside the camp. It is a complementary movement: to move into and

toward something one must be moving away from something else, the “camp.” By using

this imitative cultic language to draw near to God and the throne and entering the

sanctuary and Sabbath rest, the homilist enjoins the hearers to do things appropriate only

to the high priest, making Jesus’ followers the equivalent of high priests following their

great high priest after the order of Melchizedek and entering the heavenly holy of holies.

Through the cultic language of drawing near to the throne and to God and

entering the Sabbath rest and the sanctuary, Jesus’ followers are called upon to become

like Moses and the high priests, who also approached the throne and entered the

sanctuary, but Jesus’ followers will be approaching and entering the heavenly throne,

sanctuary, and rest—the reality that Moses saw. They can do this because Jesus’

sacrifice purifies and sanctifies them, and because Jesus’ ascent through the heavens,

behind the curtain into the Tabernacle-that-is-heaven paves the way for them to follow.

33
For example, like a priest he offers incense with pleasing odor to God in Jub. 4:23-6. In 1 Enoch, he
intercedes between God and the Watchers, also a priestly function. Peterson (Hebrews and Perfection, 79)
sees this verse as evidence for the non-cultic usage of this term and then retroactively uses this sense in
7:20, 25. Scholer (Proleptic Priests, 131-7) recognizes some priestly aspects of the Enoch tradition, but
argues the cultic character of the passage based upon the homilist’s own language usage.
 398

They follow in the footsteps of Jesus in suffering and access to the heavenly realm,

becoming high priests in imitation of their great and merciful high priest.
 399

Conclusion to Part 3: The Epistle to the Hebrews

Like the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, Hebrews appropriates the ancient Near

Eastern cosmogonic pattern of creation, enthronement, Sabbath, and the sanctuary that

the priestly writers of the Pentateuch had already emulated. As in all the previous

examples of the Sabbath-Sanctuary alignment, Hebrews likely brought them together in

the absence of the physical temple, allowing sacred time to be a means of experiencing

sacred space, although, like the Songs, it heavenly space. Hebrews, therefore, like the

Songs transposed this pattern onto the heavenly realm. Moreover, Hebrews interweaves

the different elements of the pattern skillfully and intricately throughout the homily, as

particular aspects are anticipated, developed or clustered, and retrospectively echoed,

while they are being interconnected with and overlaid upon one other.

Creation primarily comes toward the beginning, but is echoed in chapter 11. The

Son was the agent through whom God created the “ages.” God created “all things” with

Jesus sustaining all things, creating and sustaining by their “word” respectively.

Concurrently, Jesus’ self-offering as high priest purifies, sanctifies and perfects. This

theme demonstrates the homilist’s art. The sub-theme of perfection, for example, firstly

emphasizes how Jesus’ suffering perfects him interwoven with the inability of the earthly

priesthood and the law that enables it to perfect anything, delaying the moment when

Jesus’ self-sacrifice also perfects those obedient to him so that they, too, may enter the

sanctuary. Another technique is to briefly introduce important terms or phrases and

 400

develop their implications later. While Jesus’ purifying actions are mentioned from the

start, he is also called a high priest early on (2:17-28), emphasizing his mercy and

faithfulness (2:17-28; 3:2; 4:14-16). In 3:2, Jesus’ appointment is hinted, but only

developed in 5:1-10, which introduces that he is a high priest after the order of

Melchizedek, the discussion of which is delayed until 7:1-8:7. That the high priest must

atone for himself is mentioned without comment in 5:1-4, but becomes important

beginning in chapter 9. Jesus going behind the curtain is mentioned at 6:19-20, but the

discussion waits until the heavenly tent or the tent as heaven later (9:7-14, 23-28; 10:1-4,

10-25), which itself picks up on another subtle hint dropped in 6:19-20, where Jesus’ role

as high priest is also forerunner: not only does he purify, sanctify, and perfect, but he

enables his followers to imitate him, giving them access to the heavenly sanctuary, going

behind the curtain. With the power to create and restore, comes the power to destroy,

rolling back and shaking the heavens and the earth, leaving only the unshakable heavenly

rest, sanctuary, Jerusalem, which God himself prepared (1:11-12; 12:26-29; cf. 11:13-

16).

Just as Jesus’ suffering and death lead to his exaltation and enthronement, they

enable his followers to draw near to the throne and enter the sanctuary with confidence

and without fear. Enthronement recurs throughout (1:3-4; 4:14-16; 8:1-2; 10:12-13;

12:24), enmeshing itself with every other theme, particularly Jesus’ role as high priest.

Sabbath rest (3:7-4:11) only appears in one extended passage, but still becomes

interlaced with every aspect of the cosmogonic pattern. It is framed by the multivalent

symbol of God’s house (3:1-6) which shows dense intratextual interrelationships with

drawing near to God’s throne in 4:14-16, and includes a reference to God’s creation
 401

through his ceasing. Hebrews 3:7-4:11 transforms spatial land-as-rest expectations into

the temporal Sabbath rest of God. The passage strongly parallels chapter 11, where the

promised land is reconfigured into the heavenly homeland and city (esp. 11:13-16, 39-

40), which anticipates the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22-24; 13:10-15). Both of these

chapters emphasize receiving the promise, transforming land into Sabbath rest and the

heavenly homeland, faithfulness and obedience, and wandering/sojourning. The “today”

of 3:7-4:11 aligns with the “apart from us” of 11:39-40. Neither the disobedient (3:7-

4:11) nor the obedient (11:1-12:2) could enter the heavenly rest/city “today” or “apart

from us.” Both passages culminate in Jesus as enthroned as high priest and perfecter

respectively. The culmination of the passage to “enter” God’s Sabbath rest is also

matched by the ability to enter the sanctuary (10:19).

The sanctuary is briefly and elusively anticipated in 3:2-6 as God’s house (cf.

10:21), but is developed in later chapters (8:2-5; 9:1-14, 23-28; 10:19-25), with a faint

echo in 13:10-15. The opposing correspondences between hypodigm, antitype, shadow

and the type, true tent, heaven itself are set up both spatially between earth and heaven

and temporally between past and present/future, as either good things to come or good

things that have come. The Songs were the first text to mention the heavenly Tabernacle;

Hebrews was the second, making the sanctuary heaven itself. Also like the Songs,

Hebrews turns the “pattern” Moses saw into the heavenly sanctuary itself. This set of

correspondences entwines with the complex layering that occurs in the passage on the

two tents (9:1-14, 23-28), which has spatiotemporal dimensions in which the two tents of

the Tabernacle, the first and the second, map out the earthly Tabernacle as a whole, then

the current age (the first tent) and the age to come (the second tent), and earthly tent and
 402

the greater and more perfect tent, the heavenly holy of holies, which is heaven itself.

These correspondences help explain 13:10-15, which gives the complementary image of

going forth outside the camp to suffer as Jesus did as one waits for the city to come.

10:19-25, in which the hearers are exhorted to enter the sanctuary by Jesus’ blood, ties

this imagery together. The way into the holy of holies, which represents the age to come,

is not yet open in chapter 9, but with Jesus’ sacrificial actions, Jesus’ followers are

exhorted to enter the sanctuary by his blood (10:19-25), indicating that the way has been

opened. The age to come is the age that has come with Jesus’ self-sacrifice. This latter

passage also has strong resonances with 3:1-4:14-16, on God’s “house,” the great high

priest, exhorting one another, entering, the “day,” drawing near, and having confidence.

While every aspect of the cosmogonic pattern is linked to another through

juxtaposition, framing, and intratextual ties, they are also connected in the exhortations

and enabling to draw near and enter. While only Moses, Aaron, and successive high

priests could do so previously, Jesus’ followers are exhorted through Jesus and like Jesus

to enter the rest, approach the throne, draw near to God, enter the sanctuary, and draw

near to the heavenly Jerusalem. Jesus’ actions as purifier and forerunner enable this: his

ascension through the heavens allows one to draw near the throne with confidence (4:14-

16); this better hope that enters through curtain (6:19-20) enables one to draw near to

God (7:19); and Jesus entering (9:12) the heavenly tent enables one to enter (10:19-22)

the sanctuary. While Jesus has become the centripetal force for each aspect of the pattern

and the means of access of rest, the heavenly sanctuary, the heavenly homeland, and

God’s throne, God remains the source: God is the creator of all things; the Sabbath rest is

God’s rest, the heavenly tent is pitched by God while God prepares the heavenly
 403

homeland, and Jesus is enthroned next to God’s throne. God’s throne, God’s rest, God’s

tent, and God’s city is what will remain when all else has been shaken and removed.

When considering only the developments or clustering of themes, a sequence

emerges: creation, rest, high priesthood, and sanctuary with enthronement interspersed

throughout. These may not be the only thematic patterns in Hebrews, but through them,

Hebrews weaves an intricate web that attracts other concerns into its fibrous texture:

perfection, the promise, exempla of past figures, faith, obedience, enduring suffering,

judgment, and the covenant. The cosmogonic pattern already has a great deal of

complexity, and helps illuminate how Hebrews picks up earlier conceptions, transforms

them, and brings them into ever-new relationships within the pattern itself with additional

themes and concerns. It is the pattern that develops the holy chronotope, bringing the

sanctuary and the Sabbath into each other’s orbit as they become heavenly.

Hebrews displays enduring interest in spatial and temporal interrelationships even

more extensively than its predecessors the Priestly Pentateuch and the Songs. Like the

earlier sources, space-time is coordinated by a ritual event, Jesus’ Day of Atonement

ritual in the heavenly holy of holies, bridging heaven and earth as well as the current age

and the age to come. While the Sabbath and the sanctuary were interlaced and equivalent

in holiness in the Pentateuch and Ezekiel and the Sabbath was the holy occasion for re-

envisioning the heavenly sanctuary in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, in Hebrews

each element has a spatial and a temporal dimension. Space and time have not blurred

into one another so much as been layered upon each other using the same imagery,

through the promised rest reinterpreted as the Sabbath and as the heavenly homeland, and

the sanctuary, which has mirrored aspects in heaven and earth, in the current age and the
 404

age to come. This layering of space and time, mostly shifting from spatial into temporal

language, only occur in terms of Sabbath and the Tabernacle, the most holy time and the

most holy space, which have in this document become equivalent in heavenliness in the

wake of the destruction and dispersal of the center of earthly holiness.

   405  

Conclusion: Reflections and Trajectories

Configuring the Intersections of Sacred Space and Sacred Time

How sacred space and sacred time relate to one another is integral to uncovering

the configuration of the sacred, the role of the sacred, and how the sacred is created and

maintained textually, ritually, or otherwise in a society. Thereby, the coordination of

sacred space and sacred time indicate the fullest expressions of divine presence. It

demonstrates the dynamism of holiness as it is spatiotemporally reconfigured from

performance to performance, from text to text, from performance to text, and from text to

performance in the ongoing trialogue of textualization, ritualizaiton, and shifting

historical circumstances. Through this trialogue, this study has investigated how the

Sabbath and the sanctuary became the dual expressions of God’s holiness and, with the

Songs and Hebrews, heavenliness, all denoting proximity to God’s presence. Because of

this interrelationship, God’s holiness could be experienced spatially through the

sanctuary and temporally through the Sabbath, not just by the priests administering in the

temple, but for all within the covenant every seventh day. In this configuration, the

holiness of the sanctuary and the Sabbath could be experienced through one another.

Most importantly, the sanctuary’s holiness could be experienced through the Sabbath,

when access to the sanctuary’s sanctity had been barred, whether earthly or heavenly.

When the Priestly formers of the Pentateuch, particularly from the Holiness

School, Ezekiel, and Isaiah entwined sacred space and sacred time by bringing together
   406  

the Sabbath and the sanctuary, they set in motion a configuration of the sacred that would

endure to the present day.1 Yet scholarship has missed the ways in which this

configuration of holiness operated in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity.

This study has begun to fill that desideratum by bringing together all of the evidence

from the Hebrew Bible in one place for the first time. It has found that the most

significant expressions of this relationship in the Second Temple period and in early

Christianity can be found in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the

Hebrews. Both of these works realigned the Sabbath and the sanctuary in a similar and

specific manner: they resituated the entwined spatiotemporal holiness of the Sabbath and

the sanctuary within the heavenly realm, reflecting both the changing religious

environment and their social situation. They did so in similar ways by reinterpreting the

“pattern” Moses saw on Sinai as the very heavenly Tabernacle itself. They thereby

evoked that Tabernacle in a new vision or exhorted themselves and others to enter it.

They both did this by placing the larger ancient Near Eastern scheme of creation,

sanctuary, enthronement, and rest best represented by the Enuma Elish and already

emulated by the Hebrew Bible in ever-new arrangements. In both works, the Sabbath

and the sanctuary became heightened spatiotemporal indicators of proximity to the divine

presence and the means to approach and enter that presence.

The Priestly layers of the Pentateuch, particularly the Holiness School, Ezekiel,

and Isaiah established a broad foundation for the interrelatedness of the sanctuary and the

Sabbath. The Priestly formulation brought together pre-existing traditions of the Tent of

Meeting, Solomon’s Temple, the Ark of the Covenant, and the weekly cessation from

                                                                                                               
1
Green, "Sabbath as Temple," 287-305; Hoenig, " Designated Number of Kinds of Labor," 193-208.
   407  

labor and brought them into dialogue with the ancient Near Eastern framework of

creation, temple-building, enthronement, and rest, transforming all of the terms in the

process, bringing the Tent of Meeting and Solomon’s temple together into a mobile

Tabernacle, making the Ark into God’s Cherub throne, and making the Sabbath

equivalent in holiness to the sanctuary. The central pivot of this pattern is Moses’ vision

of the “pattern of the Tabernacle” on Sinai, the building of the Tabernacle, and God’s

Glory infilling the Tabernacle all interlaced with instructions to observe the Sabbath and

the actual observance of the Sabbath in imitation of God’s own rest from creation (Exod.

25-31, 35-40). This inaugurated a dynamic interplay between sacred space and sacred

time not found in other articulations of this cosmogonic pattern (e.g. other versions of the

divine combat myth and the association with “rest” without the Sabbath in Ps. 139).

Ezekiel and the Holiness School mirror one another (e.g., Leviticus 18-22, 26;

Ezekiel 20, 22), Ezekiel negatively lamenting the Sabbath and the sanctuary’s

profanation and Leviticus enjoining their reverence, but both warning the same results for

profanation and failure to properly observe: death and exile. Both bring the Sabbath and

the sanctuary together in pithy statements, making the observance and reverence for both

together a metonym for keeping the entire covenant. The profanation and defilement of

the Sabbath and the sanctuary, therefore, is a breach of the covenant, and becomes the

explanation for being expelled from the land and placed in exile.

This relationship can be extended to the Land and its Sabbath. Both the sanctuary

and the land can be defiled and each has a Sabbath that restores it: the Day of Atonement

for the sanctuary and the land’s Sabbath for the land. The consequences for failing to

revere the sanctuary and the land by defiling and profaning it and observe the Sabbath by
   408  

profaning it lead to the same result: destruction and exile, particularly the references to

being “vomited” out of the land, destroyed by one’s enemies, and scattered among the

nations. The equivalent holiness can be measured by the degree that they can be

profaned and the punishments given for profanation: death, karet, and exile. In exile, the

Land finally enjoys its own Sabbath, but also by making the Sabbath equivalent to the

now-destroyed sanctuary, one can experience the holiness of the sanctuary in the weekly

observance of the Sabbath. As the Day of Atonement restores the sanctuary and as the

land’s Sabbath restores the land, so Sabbath observance restores the people. When all

work together, God can dwell in the temple, in the land, and among the people.

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice brought the Sabbath and the sanctuary back

together for the first time since the Ezekiel and the Pentateuch, but transformed the

relationship into a heavenly one, making the Sabbath the sacred temporal access to the

sacred space of the heavenly Tabernacle. These liturgies are also the first explicitly to

bring Moses’ tavnit in Exod. 25:9, 40 and the heavenly sanctuary together and the first to

speak of a heavenly Tabernacle. In so doing, these liturgies align Moses’ vision of the

tavnit of the Tabernacle and Ezekiel’s vision of the throne-chariot compounded with

elements from other theophanies in the creative evocation of a new vision. This

alignment of many of the major theophanies in the Hebrew Bible, using Moses’ and

Ezekiel’s visions as the primary frameworks, interprets them as the same vision: Moses

and Ezekiel and everyone else saw and heard the same reality.

Like the Pentateuch and Jubilees, these liturgies are temporally organized from

the creation Sabbath and culminate in Shavuot, which celebrated Moses’ revelation on

Sinai and had already liturgically combined Ezekiel 1 and Ps. 68. Every seventh day in a
   409  

liturgical series culminating on Shavuot, after which one saw the heavenly throne-chariot

(Song 12), one evoked the ‫ תבנית‬of the heavenly Tabernacle and all it contained.

Tabernacle imagery and terminology extend throughout, particularly governing

Songs 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13, the first of which frames what follows as one evokes the

‫ ניתתב‬and the Tabernacle, and following Exodus 25-30 in organization and language: the

term “Tabernacle” itself (Songs 7 and 12; Exod. 25-30 as a whole), the veil or ‫פרוכת‬

(Song 10; Exod. 26), moving into the throne room beyond the veil (Songs 11-12), finally

seeing the “structure of the throne-chariot” in the context of the “Tabernacle” (Song 12;

Exod. 25; Ezek. 1), and finally the heavenly garments, particularly “structure of the

breastplates” and the likely living ephod/s of the high priest (Song 13; Exod. 28, 39).

Songs 7 and 12 mirror Exodus 25; Song 10, Exodus 26; and Song 13, Exodus 28 and 39.

Other priestly language cuts across the Songs. The ‫( תבנית‬Songs 7, 12, and 13)

along with its synonym ‫( מבנית‬Song 7) appears, but has shifted in meaning from “pattern”

(Exod. 25) or plan (1 Chronicles) to an enduring heavenly “structure.” This “structure” is

associated with the Tabernacle (Song 7), the “throne-chariot” (Song 12), and the high

priestly breastplates (Song 13). The Songs use the Tabernacle terminology of

“multicolored” when depicting the animate celestial architecture, beginning with the

Tabernacle in its entirety, moving through the nave to the veil, through the veil, and into

the inner sanctuary, thereby recalling the multicolored woven or embroidered hangings,

veil, and high priestly vestments in the instructions from the vision of the tavnit of the

Tabernacle. Finally, just after one passes the veil into the heavenly holy of holies, the

liturgies conjure the exclusively Tabernacle term, “purely salted” (Exod. 30:34-5; Songs
   410  

10, 11, 12, and 13), regarding the special incense used just before the ark-throne, a term

associated with the inner sanctum and those who are allowed to enter it.

By its liturgical timing, and its evocation of the heavenly Tabernacle, the Songs

bring together creation, the heavenly Tabernacle, enthronement (the throne-chariot), and

the Sabbath. In the first thirteen Sabbaths of the year, one liturgically creates the pattern

of the Tabernacle moving from Creation to Shavuot, from God’s initial Sabbath to God’s

Tabernacle. One accesses the otherwise inaccessible heavenly Tabernacle through the

Sabbath; Sabbath worship allows one to join the heavenly beings in their heavenly

worship of the God of Gods within the heavenly holy of holies, reenacting Moses’ and

Ezekiel’s visions, and aligning those visions as the same reality.

Hebrews likewise appropriates the entire pattern of Creation, Rest, Enthronement,

and sanctuary and transposes it onto the heavenly realm, bringing each aspect of the

pattern into focus and heightening spatiotemporal interplay as the Promised-Land-as-rest

becomes God’s Sabbath-rest and as the Tabernacle becomes the current season and the

age to come. Hebrews skillfully interweaves each element of the pattern throughout the

homily as each is anticipated, developed or clustered, and retrospectively echoed, while

each being interconnected, juxtaposed, and overlaid with the others. Jesus is the means

of access and the centripetal force that brings the cosmogonic pattern back together in

Hebrews, yet God remains the source for each element: God is the creator of all things

and the most enduring things; it is God’s Sabbath-rest, the heavenly tent is pitched by

God, and Jesus is enthroned next to God’s throne. These remain when all else is shaken.

Through creation, the homilist makes the Son the agent through whom God

created the “ages.” While God remains the source of “all things,” Jesus sustains all
   411  

things, creating and sustaining by their “word” respectively. Jesus’ assistance and

sustaining of creation is tied to his role as sacrificial victim and high priest; in this dual

role by which he is perfected, he purifies the conscience, sanctifies, and, unlike the

earthly priesthood and cult, perfects. Because of his suffering and death, Jesus is

enthroned next to God’s throne, enabling his followers to draw near to the throne with

confidence and without fear. He is also the destroyer, who will roll back and shake the

heavens and the earth, leaving only the unshakable heavenly rest, sanctuary, Jerusalem,

Tabernacle, all of which God prepared.

The first major spatiotemporal interplay of Heb. 3:7-4:11 transforms spatial land-

as-rest expectations into the temporal Sabbath-rest of God. The passage strongly

parallels chapter 11, which reconfigures the Promised Land as the heavenly homeland

and city (esp. 11:13-16, 39-40), anticipating the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22-24; 13:10-

15). Both chapters emphasize receiving the promise, transforming land into Sabbath-rest

and the heavenly homeland, faithfulness and obedience, and wandering. Neither the

disobedient (3:7-4:11) nor the obedient (11:1-12:2) could enter the heavenly rest/city

“today” or “apart from us.” Both passages culminate in Jesus as enthroned as high priest

and perfecter respectively. The culmination of the passage to “enter” God’s Sabbath-rest

is matched by entering the sanctuary (10:19). While the Land has been temporalized into

the Sabbath, the Sabbath has acquired spatial dimensions as the homilist enjoins one to

enter it like one enters the heavenly sanctuary and comes to the heavenly homeland.

Instead of a weekly observance, it is an enduring state of access and proximity to God’s

heavenly presence. For Hebrews the world to come was an enduring heavenly Sabbath.
   412  

The next major spatiotemporal interplay centers on the sanctuary, which also

provides the terminology for the homily’s cosmology. The opposing correspondences

between hypodigm, antitype, and shadow and the type, true tent, and heaven itself are set

up both spatially between earth and heaven and temporally between past and

present/future. Like the Songs, Hebrews turns the “pattern” Moses saw into the heavenly

sanctuary itself. This second instance of a heavenly Tabernacle (the Songs being the

first) garners temporal dimensions, as the two “tents” of the Tabernacle represent the

earthly Tabernacle as a whole, the current season and the age to come, and finally the

earthly tent and heavenly Tabernacle, which is heaven itself. 10:19-25 is the culminating

moment when the hearers are exhorted to enter the sanctuary like they were already

exhorted to enter the Sabbath rest by Jesus’ blood, following Jesus behind the curtain by

being willing to go “outside the camp” and imitate his suffering.

Jesus’ actions as purifier and forerunner enable one to draw near to God, while

one must be willing to suffer: his ascension through the heavens allows one to draw near

the throne with confidence (4:14-16); this better hope that enters through curtain (6:19-

20) enables one to draw near to God (7:19); and Jesus entering (9:12) the heavenly tent

enables one to enter (10:19-22) the sanctuary. At the same time, one must not be

faithless like the desert generation (3:7-4:11), remain faithful like the great exemplars of

faith (Heb. 11), and be willing to suffer as Jesus did (Heb. 12-13) in order to enter God’s

Sabbath-rest, approach the throne, draw near to God, and enter the sanctuary as heavenly

high priests in imitation of the great high priest, who is the perfected perfecter of faith.

Hebrews evinces more extensive spatiotemporal interest than its predecessors. It

layers sacred space and time onto one another as the promised land and Tabernacle
   413  

become temporalized as God’s Sabbath rest and the coming age: God’s Sabbath rest and

the coming age are the eschatological temporal access to the heavenly homeland which is

the Tabernacle. Sabbath has become an enduring heavenly existence mirroring the

enduring Tabernacle. Both the Sabbath and the Tabernacle have spatial and temporal

dimensions; in the wake of the destruction and dispersal of earthly holiness, they have

become equivalent in heavenliness. As one enters the Sabbath-rest and enters the

sanctuary, one draws near to God; they are enduring spatiotemporal indices of God’s

continued presence

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews vividly

reconfigure the entwined Sabbath and the sanctuary embedded within the larger pattern

into new heavenly realities, but some trends endure in the new formulations. Due to their

brevity and focus, both works concentrate the relationships found in the Hebrew Bible.

Making the Sabbath equivalent in holiness or heavenliness to the sanctuary makes the

sanctuary’s holiness accessible to those within the covenant, those within the more

specific priestly or sectarian enclave, or the faithful Jesus followers through the temporal

holiness of the Sabbath, whether weekly or eschatologically. The sanctuary endures

through the Sabbath in the absence or general inaccessibility of the sanctuary. As dual

expressions of holiness, one can be experienced through the other, with the greatest

intensity occurring in their ritual alignment (e.g., the Day of Atonement, Shavuot, etc.).

Supporting Themes

These alignments of the Sabbath and the sanctuary have been supported by and

have generated some important sub-themes. Some of these are integral aspects of the
   414  

broader ancient Near Eastern pattern, bringing the Sabbath and the sanctuary into

ongoing interaction with creation and God’s throne. Other components have contributed

to the very act of reinterpretation to new circumstances while still others have, in turn,

been transformed by the result of these reinterpretations. Since creation and enthronement

are already well-tread areas of research, I will offer up two integral issues that could use

more systematic investigation or could be significantly re-analyzed in light of this study:

the “pattern” of the Tabernacle that Moses saw and for the second, the act of imitation.

The “Pattern” Moses Saw

The interpretation of Exod. 25:9 (and parallel statements) has been integral into

bringing the Sabbath-sanctuary correlation into dialogue with the shifting religious

environment that imagined new relationships between heaven and earth. The “pattern”

Moses saw on Sinai has been the key to the framing of visionary evocation and

cosmology, as what Moses saw changed from divinely revealed plans to the very

structure of the heavenly Tabernacle of which the earthly was a “shadowy illustration.”

Moses’ vision of the “pattern” (‫ )תבנית‬of the Tabernacle in its many aspects and

dimensions at Sinai is repeated in the narrative three times and alluded to once (Exod.

25:9, 40; 26:30; cf. 27:8). This word has a broad semantic range, meaning “pattern”

(Exod 25:9, 40; 1 Chron 28:11, 18), “copy” (Josh 12:28), or “form” or “image” or

“shape” in idolatry (Deut 4:16-18; Is. 44:13; Ps. 106:20), as a term for theophany (Ezek

8:3, 10; 10:10), or in a neutral sense (Ps. 144:12). In Part 1, I argued that the Priestly

version of Moses’ vision of the “pattern” of the Tabernacle, its construction, and the
   415  

divine indwelling of it (Exod. 25-31, 35-40) is a systematization of Ezekiel’s vision in

Ezekiel 40-48 in the ongoing situation of the Babylonian Exile.

The earliest interpretation of this idea appears in the Chronicler’s rewriting of the

building of Solomon’s temple, in which God reveals the plans (‫ )תבנית‬for the temple to

David, who in turn shows them to Solomon. 1 Chron. 28:10-19 brings 1 Kings 6-7 into

dialogue with the priestly Tabernacle, emphasizing that Solomon’s temple was built

according to the divinely revealed plans written by God’s own hand. This is one of the

possibilities for reading the Exodus scene itself, although the passage is obscure.

The reflection on what Moses saw gained greater popularity in the Second

Temple period. Some writers did little with the concept (Pseudo-Philo), but others used it

to push the pattern back to creation itself (Wisdom of Solomon): it is an archetype, but

not necessarily a structure. In 2 Baruch, it is preserved by God, shown, given to, and

taken from Adam along with Paradise and will be restored in the future in the age of the

Messiah. In this instance, it is becoming a real structure, but it is still not a heavenly

structure; it is a protological and eschatological one. Philo explained it in terms of a two-

step process of World of Ideas (pattern) being impressed onto the mind (type) and, in

turn, onto the sensible world (copies). Nonetheless, these works that are roughly

contemporaneous with the Songs and Hebrews show heightened interest in the idea, and,

what is more, it was becoming something other than divinely revealed plans.

While scholarship has often thought that this passage in Exodus either assumed,

presented, or catalyzed the concept of the heavenly sanctuary,2 this study has found, to

the contrary, no hint of a heavenly sanctuary in this passage, which, at best is simply

                                                                                                               
2
E.g., Barker, Gate of Heaven.
   416  

ambiguous, but most likely portrays a highly charged moment of divine relation of plans

rather than a vision of the heavenly or archetypal sanctuary. Moreover, the Second

Temple Jewish apocalyptic literature that discusses the heavenly sanctuary (e.g., 1 Enoch,

Testament of Levi), excepting the Songs and Hebrews, never explicitly cites or implicitly

alludes to Moses’ vision, although they show connections with Ezekiel 40-48.3 2 Baruch

may imply such a notion, since it is preserved with God until it is finally reestablished on

earth in the future city/paradise, yet it does not indicate a permanent heavenly structure

(cf. Rev. 21:1-22:4). Instead, the Songs and Hebrews provide the first and second

instances that bring this vision together with a heavenly sanctuary—specifically the

heavenly Tabernacle. Although all of these works except Pseudo-Philo, nonetheless,

conceived of the pattern as something more enduring than a physical building in a period

fraught with tension and unease: it existed within the mind of God, was with God from

creation and would be reestablished, or was an enduring heavenly structure.

The Songs and Hebrews, therefore, are the earliest works to align Moses’ vision

with the heavenly sanctuary. In the former, the terminology of the ‫ תבנית‬appears in Songs

7, 12, and 13 regarding the heavenly Tabernacle, the throne-chariot, and the high priests’

breastplates. In Song 7, it is used multiple times to frame the entire vision as the homilies

approach the firmament, the holy of holies, the inner chamber, and, for the first time in

surviving literature, the heavenly Tabernacle. In this Song the term appears alongside a

neologism, ‫מבנית‬, using the same root to intensify the usage. Yet from “pattern” and

“plan,” the terminology has shifted in meaning to “structure.” These are not visions of

blueprints or plans, but of the enduring heavenly structure itself, complete with living

                                                                                                               
3
Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 153-7; Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 9-28.
   417  

bricks and inscribed beings. While the “structure” frames the Tabernacle in Song 7, the

Tabernacle frames the “structure of the throne-chariot” in Song 12, aligning Ezekiel’s

vision of the throne-chariot with Moses’ vision of the Tabernacle. Finally, in Song 13, it

designates the “structure of the breastplates,” with regard to the heavenly high priestly

garments. The alignment of the visions using the language of the Moses’ vision with the

elements of Ezekiel’s, occurring around the sectarian’s calendrical reckoning for

Shavuot, in which Moses’ revelation on Sinai to receive the covenant and Ezekiel’s

vision were recalled, indicate that these liturgies reenact Moses’ and Ezekiel’s combined

visions within the heavenly realm, as Moses saw his vision on the “seventh” day and the

liturgical usage of the Songs occur every Sabbath.

Finally, the Epistle to the Hebrews draws upon several Mosaic traditions—Moses

as the most faithful servant in God’s “house”; the “pattern of the Tabernacle”; having a

vision of the invisible; and the Sinai theophany—to both praise Moses and subordinate

him to Jesus. Hebrews places the terminology of the “type” of the Tabernacle into a two-

tiered cosmological framework, using terms that in other contexts have ontological

(Plato) and spatial resonances (Exodus) into one with ontological, spatial, and temporal

dimensions. The “type” from Exod. 25:40, heaven, the true tent, the “form itself,”

corresponds to the antitype, the hypodigm, and shadow of these realities, and, as a

hendiadys, Moses’ Tabernacle becomes a “shadowy illustration” of the heavenly

reality—that is, the type. The earthly tent, rites, and law correspond to both heavenly and

future realities, playing with both dimensions characteristic of Jewish apocalyptic. The

location of Jesus’ sacrifice in the heavenly tent that guarantees its efficaciousness, its

ability to perfect, by contrast to the temporally earlier copied rites in the antitypical tent.
   418  

While in the Pentateuch, at first only Moses could draw near to God and enter the dark

cloud/Tabernacle where God was (Exod. 24:1-18) and then only the high priest could

enter the holy of holies with a cloud of incense, reenacting Moses’ entering the divine

cloud (Lev. 16:2, 17, 23), Hebrews enjoins the hearers to enter the heavenly sanctuary

(Heb. 10:19-22) like Jesus did (6:19-20; 9:12, 24). They have not come to the earthly

mountain (Heb. 12:18-21) where Moses had his vision of the heavenly type, but into the

heavenly type itself—the heavenly Sabbath, the heavenly tent, the heavenly city.

Although this study has made headway in understanding the complex

developments of the reinterpretations of Moses’ vision of the pattern of the Tabernacle on

Sinai, there is much potential for further study of this history of interpretation. Reflection

on this passage has proven important for understanding shifting cosmologies, becoming a

structure of the heavenly sanctuary, its role as a pre-created archetype, a protological and

eschatological temple, and brought together with Platonic philosophy. Investigating the

passages cited here as well as later Christian and Rabbinic works would be an important

contribution to our understanding of temple/Tabernacle traditions as they are embedded

in ever-changing religious, social, and philosophical contexts. The ongoing reflections

on this passage, in short, is a lens that brings social, cosmological, and theological

developments into focus in their relationships to one another.

Imitation: God, Angels, and Christ

In the modern world, “imitation” negatively connotes non-originality; in the

ancient world, it positively secured tradition. Imitation, however, is both creative and

conservative. In the gap between imitated and imitator is an opportunity to open up

   419  

transformations within tradition as one imitates legendary past figures and divine figures

in new social and historical circumstances.

Imitation takes a variety of forms. It can artistically represent reality,4 be integral

in the configurations of power relations in social circumstances,5 and, as such, be used as

a form of cultural emulation in imperial-colonial relations, such as when Jerusalemite

priests reformulated their tradition in the Babylonian exile to reflect Babylonian patterns.

More central to this study, Jonathan Klawans has isolated divine imitation as one of the

purposive characteristics of the “symbolic system” of sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible and

beyond, the other being attracting and maintaining the divine presence.6 Whether this

imitation was the purpose of the sacrificial system or not, it certainly was a consistent

aspect of the pattern of symbols of creation, enthronement, the sanctuary, and the

Sabbath. In Klawans’s study, the divine imitation found in the Hebrew Bible turns to the

imitation of angels in second temple Judaism, and finally to imitating the temple itself

among the Dead Sea sectarians. My study would add to this list, the imitation of Christ

for the early Christian materials as they appropriate and redirect the mimetic impulse.

Yet the aspect of imitation that has not garnered as much attention is the imperative, the

command, and the exhortation to imitate.7 This study has found that divine imitation and

its related iterations have consistently been entwined with command and exhortation in

                                                                                                               
4
Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, trans. Willard R. Trask,
Fiftieth Anniversary Edition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003).
5
Elizabeth A. Castelli, Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power (Louisville: Westminster / John Knox Press,
1991).
6
Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple.
7
The exception to this is the literature surrounding Paul’s command to imitate him. See, e.g., Castelli,
Imitating Paul.
   420  

rather complex ways: God commanding the people to imitate God; humans exhorting

angels to praise whereby the humans join and imitate those angels in their praise; and a

leader of a community enjoining that community to imitate Christ. While divine

imitation unveils conceptions of theological and cosmological relations, the imperative to

imitate heightens and intensifies those relations by making the social element explicit.

In Part 1, this study investigated multiple manners of imitation surrounding the

Sabbath-sanctuary interrelationships. While the entire cosmogonic pattern is itself an act

of emulation, the resultant of this imitation included specific traditional forms of

imitating the divine and past legendary figures. The six commands God gave to Moses

(“the LORD said to Moses”) in Exodus 25-31 (25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1, 15-17)

ending with the seventh command to observe the Sabbath mirrored the six days of

utterances of creation ending with the Sabbath in Gen. 1:1-2:3, which was then mirrored

in the seven-fold building “just as the LORD had commanded” (Exod. 40:19, 21, 23, 25,

27, 29, 32). Finally, the priestly command to observe the Sabbath directly correlates the

six days of work with the seventh day of rest with God’s six days of creation and resting

on the seventh day (Exod. 31:15-17). So not only is divine imitation a part of the

building of the Tabernacle, but the ongoing weekly rhythm of six days of work and a

seventh day of rest is an ongoing act of imitating God. One’s weekly life links up to the

building of the Tabernacle and Sabbath-rest and imitating God’s six-day creation and

Sabbath ceasing. Likewise, God commands to the people to be holy as God is holy (Lev.

19:2-4); one imitates God’s holiness by revering and observing his holiness in space and

time—by revering the sanctuary and observing the Sabbath—by honoring ones’ parents,
   421  

and by avoiding idolatry (cf. Lev. 26:1-2). Again, by observing the holiness of the

Sabbath and the sanctuary, one imitates God’s holiness, becoming holy as God is holy.

There is a final act of imitation in Part 1: the high priest imitates Moses. In

Leviticus 16 when the high priest enters the holy of holies, creating an incense cloud, and

approaches God on the throne in the sacred enclosure, he imitates Moses’ entrance into

the dark cloud where God was and Moses’ subsequent meetings with God above the

Cherubim in the sacred enclosure as ritual and story interact and mutually affect one

another—meaning the stories around Moses’ ascent to the mountain and the rituals of the

Day of Atonement are much older than in their current form, but in their current form

they have been brought together as a single narrative-ritual complex.

The Songs maintained this dual imitation: imitating a past legendary figure and a

divine figure. As argued in part 2, the Sabbath liturgies imitate Moses insofar as they

reenact his vision of the “structure” of the heavenly Tabernacle and Ezekiel as they

reenact his vision of the “structure” of God’s “throne-chariot.” In joining in the heavenly

Sabbath liturgies by exhorting heavenly beings to praise the “god of gods,” the

participants imitate the heavenly host, just as the Sabbath is an angelic establishment

imitated by humans in Jub. 2:19-22. While imitation by exhortation may seem

counterintuitive as humans exhort heavenly beings, it introduces another traditional

aspect into imitation: calling upon all of creation to praise God harmoniously (Psalms

146-150). There is, therefore, a doubled imitation between imitating past visions of the

heavenly sanctuary and imitating heavenly worship. Yet in bringing these two forms of

imitation together, the Sabbath liturgies transform both: making what Moses and Ezekiel
   422  

saw a heavenly Tabernacle with a heavenly throne within it; and placing the heavenly

liturgies found in primarily Enochic traditions in the Mosaic vision.

In Hebrews, there is more of what Bell calls a “countermanding” of tradition,

extolling the Mosaic vision of the invisible and of the “type” of the Tabernacle, but not

coming to the fearful mountain he did; instead, imitating Christ. Nonetheless, the

praising of past heroes primarily in chapter 11 also indicates what should be emulated,

highlighting in that section the actions of multiple figures, but particularly Abraham and,

once again, Moses. As just discussed regarding the “pattern of the Tabernacle,” the

homilist exhorts Jesus’ followers to enter the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 10:19-22) like

Jesus did (6:19-20; 9:12, 24), entering what Moses saw, but could not enter “apart from

us.” Likewise, by entering God’s Sabbath-rest, Hebrews picks up on the Pentateuchal

traditions of divine imitation (Heb. 4:8-11a). This imitation of Christ, however, does not

end there. In order to enter the Sabbath-rest, to approach the throne, draw near to God,

enter the sanctuary, and come to the heavenly Jerusalem (as opposed to the fearful

Sinai/Horeb), they must also learn to suffer just as Jesus did, or learn to be willing to

suffer just as Jesus did. Their endurance of abuse (12:3-17) imitates Jesus’ suffering and

disgrace (12:1-2; 13:12), as they go outside the camp just as Jesus went outside the camp

to suffer (13:10-14). Imitation, it turns out, is the key to relating entering the heavenly

sanctuary and the enigmatic going outside the camp. Just as Jesus entered the sanctuary

(Heb. 6:19-20; 9:12, 24), so his followers enter the sanctuary (10:19-22); just as he

suffered (12:1-2), so his followers should be ready to suffer (12:3-17; 13:10-14).

In these works exhortation plays an integral role in imitation. In the Pentateuch,

God commands the people to imitate God in the pattern of working and resting, bringing
   423  

weekly life, the building of the Tabernacle and observance of the Sabbath, and God’s

creation and ceasing together. God commands the people to be holy as God is holy. In

the Songs, the participants exhort the very heavenly beings they join in worship of the

Sabbath and imitate in Sabbath worship in the heavenly Tabernacle. In Hebrews, the

author exhorts the people to imitate God in entering Sabbath-rest and imitate Christ in

entering the sanctuary and enduring suffering. Imitation of God, angels, and Christ turns

out to be an important component of the Sabbath-sanctuary relationship. There is some

imperative to observe, revere, praise, and enter when the Sabbath and the sanctuary are

brought together: by observing the Sabbath and revering the sanctuary, one becomes

holy as God is holy; by observing the Sabbath, anyone in the covenant experiences its

holiness every week; by participating in the Sabbath liturgies, one experiences heaven; by

entering God’s Sabbath-rest and the heavenly Tabernacle by enduring suffering, one

draws near to God on God’s throne. These exhortations and imitations allowed one to

experience God’s holiness and God’s heavenliness when traditional forms of access to

the sacred enclosure were barred or destroyed, yet also uncover the dynamic relations

between God and people, heaven and earth, and author and audience.

Social Circumstances

One of the legs of the triangle of textualization, ritualization, and environment

that needs further attention is the social environment that gave rise to and maintained the

Sabbath-sanctuary relationship. Excepting Ezekiel, every work discussed in this study

has a contested social location; therefore, one must proceed with due caution.

Nonetheless, the preceding discussions have isolated situations that are most likely for
   424  

these works. From Babylon to Judea to possibly Rome, every known iteration of this

pattern that survives occurs when the community is deprived of the space of the sacred

enclosure in exile after the destruction of the first temple, sectarian separation, and the

destruction of the second temple. The last occurrence would also apply to the

reemergence of this relationship in Rabbinic and post-Rabbinic Jewish sources. Arthur

Green for Judaism and J.Z. Smith for Christianity indicate a trajectory of sacred time

overcoming, succeeding, or superseding sacred space in the wake of the destruction of

the second temple. While I resist this interpretation, it has insight. Building upon this

insight, I would say, rather, that by equating the Sabbath to the sanctuary, by elevating

the Sabbath’s sanctity to that of the sanctuary, or by having the Sabbath by the temporal

access to the heavenly sanctuary (Songs) or allowing one to enter the Sabbath and the

sanctuary in heaven simultaneously as equivalent expressions of heavenliness (Hebrews),

all of these traditions are making the absent temple’s holiness accessible through the

Sabbath. It is not that the Sabbath replaces the sanctuary, but the sanctuary’s holiness is

experienced through the Sabbath in the absence of the physical sanctuary.

The temporal access of spatial holiness acquires poignant significance for those

times when access to the temple was limited or non-existent. This equation of the

Sabbath’s holiness with that of the sanctuary in the Hebrew Bible most likely arose

during the Babylonian Exile in the sixth century BCE after the first temple was

destroyed. As argued in Part 1, although the ancient Near Eastern narrative patterns

would have been available for centuries in their various forms and, in fact, appear in

many iterations in the Hebrew Bible, the particular formulation of the Priestly materials

most strongly resembles the Babylonian tradition with its emphasis on rest. The times
   425  

surrounding the Babylonian Exile provide the most likely and conspicuous context for

observation and reflection on the new year’s rites of the akitu, including the recitation of

the Enuma Elish on the fourth day and the kuppuru rites on the fifth day of the festival.

While Deuteronomy may have already established the Sabbath’s holiness, it

acquired increased significance in the Priestly Source, the Holiness School, and in

Ezekiel as a means to maintain one’s traditions in a foreign land. Ezekiel and the

Holiness School formulated the equation of the spatial holiness of the sanctuary and the

temporal holiness of the Sabbath in exile, using their profanation alongside the neglect of

the Land’s Sabbath as an explanation for the exilic “punishment,” something that most

prevalently appears in exilic or post-exilic literature and rarely in pre-exilic materials.

The interest in the mobile shrine of the Tabernacle and equating its holiness with the

Sabbath, which could be observed anywhere, had its greatest poignancy in coming to

terms with a templeless situation.8 The priestly explanation of and solution to exile was

the elevation of the Sabbath’s holiness to that of the sanctuary in a broader narrative and

ritual context that brought together traditional Judahite and Babylonian traditions into

dialogue. This solution democratized access to the holiness of the sanctuary every

seventh day beyond the priestly class to all those within the covenant.

The location of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is more difficult to discern.

While they are most certainly to be placed in early Roman Judea (most likely in the first

century BCE, if not a little earlier with continued use into the first century CE), the

question remains whether they were pre-/para-sectarian or sectarian. Compelling

arguments have been made on both sides of this question even by the same scholar
                                                                                                               
8
I am borrowing this term from Jill Middlemas, The Templeless Age: An Introduction to the History,
Literature, and Theology of the "Exile" (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007).
   426  

(Newsom). If they were produced outside of a sectarian context, and even by priests

connected to the Jerusalem temple, then these liturgies would provide an important

complication to the social framework that gave rise to the Sabbath-sanctuary relationship

in the Pentateuch and Ezekiel and would sustain it after the destruction of Herod’s

temple, demonstrating that interest in the Sabbath as the access to the sanctuary’s

holiness could be developed in interesting ways while the earthly sanctuary remained

accessible. Nonetheless, with the rise of the concept of the heavenly sanctuary that

mirrored the earthly sanctuary, these liturgies similarly made the Sabbath the entrée into

the otherwise inaccessible heavenly sanctuary. Nonetheless, the only known usage of the

Songs are by a sectarian group whose access to the sanctuary had been barred either by

self-imposition (by claiming that the Jerusalem temple was defiled) or by exclusion of the

current priestly elite that pushed this priestly group out. Much like the original

development of the intersections of the holiness of the sanctuary and the Sabbath, the

Sabbath became the occasion to experience not only the sanctuary’s holiness, but its

heavenliness on a weekly basis. The Sabbath became the temporal access point to the

heavenly realm, a place otherwise inaccessible to earthly creatures.

There is little consensus concerning the context of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but

an increasingly convincing case is currently being made for a post-70 situation with

connections to Flavian Rome. While it may have originated elsewhere, the author and/or

audience likely had contacts with one of the early Christian churches in Rome, which

provides a fitting context for the emphasis on the Sabbath and the sanctuary.

If this is the most likely context for Hebrews whether in authorship or early

readership, the Flavian policies and building projects would have made an impression.
   427  

Titus’ destruction of the Jerusalem temple partially legitimized the foundation of the

Flavian dynasty. Hebrews would have been read and heard in a context in which one

would be continually reminded of this. The fiscus Iudaicus expanded and redirected the

temple tax to Jupiter Capitolinus. The Jewish War was celebrated in the triumphal march

not long after the Temple’s destruction and commemorated in the Arch of Titus, which

depicts the temple implements in the triumphal procession. The spoils from the treasury

of the Temple funded the building of the Colosseum, transforming Nero’s Golden House

into public land. The temple implements found their resting place in the newly

constructed Temple of Peace. The Jerusalem Temple became effectively integrated into

Roman public space, transforming that space in the process.

In such a context, Hebrews creates an enduring heavenly Tabernacle that

condenses the imagery of sanctuary, Sabbath, throne, and city as they become alternative

expressions of heavenly existence. The true reality that Moses saw becomes an enduring

hope in the face of earthly transience and suffering in the wake of the destruction of the

temple and its reminders throughout Roman public space. In contrast to the ephemeral

earthly temple or even the earthly city of Rome and its forced integration of the

Jerusalem cult into its own system, which will be shaken, the suffering of Jesus emulated

by his followers, provides access to an unshakable heavenly city, the heavenly rest, and

the enduring Tabernacle that precedes creation and succeeds destruction. This enduring

heavenly rest and enduring heavenly Tabernacle gave impetus to remain faithful and

enter it rather than faithless and fall away as the previously established sacred economy

fell to pieces, and one could see those shattered remains daily. Once again, bringing the
   428  

Sabbath and Tabernacle together within a broader complex of creation and destruction,

enthronement, sanctuary, and rest provided a solution in a moment of crisis.

These moments prompt those caught without access to the sacred to draw upon

particularly priestly traditions that align sacred space with sacred time to allow access to

sacred space through sacred time. In this way, Hebrews represents the survival of the

Jewish priestly impulse in early Christianity. Without a temple for the priests to

administer, and many of them taken to Rome as prisoners and slaves, Hebrews calls upon

its hearers to become heavenly priests in emulation of their heavenly high priest. They

attend to a sanctuary not subject to the ravages of time or armies; one that can be

accessed anywhere. For Hebrews, one can enter God’s Sabbath rest and enter God’s

Tabernacle by emulating Jesus’ own suffering and remaining faithful in difficult times.

Endurance itself provides one’s access to heavenly proximity to God’s presence.

Each situation involves the disruption of the status quo ante, and each work

evinces strong priestly interests, whether the priestly legislation, joining the heavenly

priests, or following the great priest of the heavenly Tabernacle as high priests; in such

disruptions, those behind these works drew upon and creatively recombined the symbols

of the Sabbath and the sanctuary into new relationships as the temporal and spatial

expressions of God’s presence through holiness and heavenliness. By making the

Sabbath equivalent to the sanctuary and by making the sanctuary’s holiness present in the

Sabbath, Sabbath observance gives access to sanctuary-like holiness and heavenliness.

This maneuver, thereby, gave access to God’s presence expressed in holiness and

heavenliness when the typical mediation of that presence was removed.

   429  

Relationship between Works

Considering these works’ social locations prompts reflection on their possible

relationships to one another. Their shared interest in priestly matters may go far in

explaining their relationship, as each new work was written in succession of, in dialogue

with, or in opposition to earlier priestly works. While I will reiterate the different

relationships intermittently discussed throughout this study, the question of the

relationship between the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews

remains, given their striking similarities of fairly rare qualities while respecting their

strong diverges in things such as purpose and genre. Overall, the question stands to what

degree general social circumstances and to what degree direct interactions between works

explain their specific composition of similarities and differences.

As discussed in Part 1, the Priestly writers brought together the Deuteronomic

account of the building of Solomon’s temple with the non-Priestly accounts of the Tent of

Meeting within the broader framework of ancient Near Eastern cosmogonic patterns that

most closely reflected the Enuma Elish, and, with the account of the Day of Atonement,

the kuppuru: both being part of the Babylonian New Year festival, the akitu. There this

study was in agreement with Israel Knohl’s argument that the Holiness School most

likely edited earlier Priestly materials. On the other hand, while Ezekiel evinces very

strong similarities with the Holiness School, it seems that the relationship between the

Holiness editing and Ezekiel places Ezekiel in the earlier position. In sum, it was the

Holiness School that brought Ezekiel, earlier non-Priestly materials, Priestly materials,

Deuteronomy, and the ancient Near Eastern cosmogonic framework into dialogue with

one another, transforming each ingredient as they are aligned with one another in its
   430  

resulting account that skillfully relates God’s Creation, the Tabernacle, the Sabbath, and

God’s Cherub. In turn, the Chronicler reread the Deuteronomic account of Solomon’s

temple through the newer lens of the Priestly narrative (edited by the Holiness School),

creating a complex relationship between works.

In the discussion of the “pattern of the Tabernacle,” we found that traditions of

the heavenly sanctuary in the Enochic tradition (1 Enoch, Test. Levi, etc.) do not

originate with Moses’ vision of a heavenly archetype. The Enochic corpus was aware of

Pentateuchal traditions, but went a different direction. In the Enochic corpus, Moses

plays little role in the earliest documents. The rise of the concept of the heavenly temple,

therefore, does not directly derive from the Exodus account. Nonetheless, like the

Holiness tradents likely did, the Enochic tradents relied upon Ezekiel. Thus, Ezekiel

partially influences the generation of the Enochic and Priestly Pentateuchal accounts, but

only in the Priestly Pentateuch does the Sabbath-sanctuary relationship survive.

Jubilees, however, would unite the themes, motifs, and interests of the Enochic

and Mosaic narratives, and, while not bringing the Sabbath and sanctuary together, it

would provide the narrative etiology for the practices found in the Songs. While the

sanctuary is anticipated and conspicuously absent in Jubilees (Jub. 1.27-29), both works

emphasize the conjoined worship of human and angelic figures on the Sabbath and

Shavuot. They both use the account of Moses’ revelation on Sinai as an organizing

principle. The other organizing principle is the Sabbath itself: as Sabbaths in the Songs

and as Sabbatical years and Jubilees in Jubilees. In Jubilees the Sabbath is the angelic

response to God’s creation and only given subsequently to humans, as is the festival of

Shavuot, circumcision, and the priesthood. In Jubilees, the narrative breaks away just
   431  

before one would expect the instructions for the Tabernacle. It is unclear what the exact

relationship between Jubilees and the Songs is. They share the solar calendar and the

conjoined worship by human and angelic figures on the Sabbath. Their differences are a

product of the differentiation of genre, but this generic differentiation creates a nice

complementarity between them: Jubilees is a narrative explanation of practices reflected

in the Songs. This does not help with a more precise direction of influence, although

traditionally Jubilees is dated earlier than the Sabbath liturgies currently are; but they

most likely emerged in social and historical proximity.

More important for this study is the relationship between the Songs of the Sabbath

Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Songs finally bring everything together:

Priestly Pentateuchal narratives, Ezekiel, Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, conjoined worship

between humans and heavenly figures like Jubilees, and the heavenly sanctuary like in

the Enochic works. Hebrews likewise reflects on Pentateuchal narratives with a heavy

reliance on the Psalms to create a similar framework, as they both bring the Sabbath and

the sanctuary back into relationship with one another in the heavenly realm.

While these two works share both broad similarities and fairly rare traits, there are

some strong divergences between them. While Hebrews speaks of angelic figures, it has

little interest in them except insofar as they serve Christ. By contrast, the Songs show a

heightened interest in various levels of angels, exhorting each to praise the God of Gods.

Hebrews also exhorts, but exhorting humans who are to become heavenly priests rather

than the heavenly host, except insofar as those exhorted in Hebrews are to become like

those exhorted in the Songs, both acting as heavenly priests. The centripetal force of

Hebrews is, of course, Christ, and while there is likely a Melchizedek figure in the Songs
   432  

and that figure may have an important role, but not the central and galvanizing role Jesus

has. In Hebrews, creation in general and of the unshakable realm remains God’s, but

Jesus has an important creative, sustaining, and destructive role; Jesus is enthroned next

to God’s throne; Jesus acts as the heavenly high priest in God’s Tabernacle that God set

up, and Sabbath rest remains God’s rest. By including Jesus into this broader pattern that

finds its source in God, Hebrews, of all the documents, displays all elements of the

cosmogonic pattern emulated by the Pentateuch most clearly throughout, whereas in the

Songs, while all are present, creation is implicitly present in the temporal sequencing,

while the other components are clearly and explicitly present. Finally, there is the

differentiation of genre: the Songs are meant to accompany a liturgy on the Sabbath,

making the Sabbath the temporal access of the heavenly realm, while Hebrews is a

homily. While it also makes the Sabbath into a heavenly reality, it does not appear as a

weekly rite that gives access to the heavenly realm, but is a temporal expression of the

very heavenly realm one is trying to access. For Hebrews, it appears more as a heavenly

and eschatological ceasing from labors that imitates God’s heavenly and protological

ceasing from labors; the Sabbath is the rest found in the heavenly homeland.

The differences between how these two works conceptualize the overall pattern of

creation, Sabbath, enthronement, and sanctuary and the more specific interrelationship

between the Sabbath and the sanctuary are stark, but their similarities are striking.

Barring a new discovery, these are the first two works from antiquity to align the Sabbath

and the sanctuary after the Pentateuch, Ezekiel, and Isaiah. In doing so, they are the first

two works to bring the Sabbath and the sanctuary together in a heavenly manner rather

than in a future earthly eschatological sanctuary, reflecting the increasing interest in a

   433  

heavenly sanctuary in the Second Temple Period. They are the first and second works to

portray a heavenly Tabernacle, reflecting on the pre-temple Mosaic tent, the temple’s

prototype. They both do this by reflecting upon and reinterpreting Moses’ vision of the

“pattern” of the Tabernacle. They also reinterpret this vision in similar ways, turning

divinely revealed plans into a vision of the heavenly sanctuary. As such, both invite the

participants or hearers to evoke, see, and enter what Moses saw. Finally, they both likely

place a Melchizedekian priestly figure within the heavenly Tabernacle, although the

materials for the Sabbath liturgies is unfortunately fragmentary to be completely certain.

Therefore, the Sabbath liturgies and Hebrews share many similarities, some of which in

this period are unique to these two documents.

What relationship between these two documents best explains their particular

mixture of divergences and convergences? I offer two possibilities. Firstly, the

similarities may be explained by having two groups in fairly similar circumstances,

reflecting on the same traditions that were most appropriate to come to terms with these

circumstances. Both works are chronologically close: late second, early first-century

BCE for the Songs and first century CE for Hebrews. Like the original framing of the

Sabbath-sanctuary relationship, these two groups endured separation from the holiness of

the temple, either by interdiction or by the temple’s destruction, and they reflected on

similar priestly traditions that allowed the holiness of the sanctuary to be experienced

outside of the sanctuary to come to terms with their separation. In so doing, however,

they both adapted their sources to changing religious circumstances by placing that

relationship in the heavenly realm. Since the earlier traditions emphasized the
   434  

Tabernacle rather than the temple and placed it in the broader framework of creation, rest,

sanctuary, and enthronement, each work picked up on this pattern to varying degrees.

The other option is a more direct influence with the author of Hebrews knowing

the Songs or something like them, or less directly knowing someone who knew the

Songs, such as a priest brought to Rome in the wake of Titus’ destruction of the Temple:

an author, perhaps himself related to the priesthood, interested in priestly and cultic

aspects consulting a priest, allowing the priestly impulse to survive in Christianity

without an earthly temple in a new way. In this model, the Songs would have inspired

the manner of reinterpreting the cosmogonic narrative pattern and the specific elements

therein, particularly the heavenly Sabbath and the heavenly Tabernacle and the similar

ways they interpret Moses’ vision and place a Melchizedek-like figure in the heavenly

Tabernacle. In this way, the precise analogies between the interests of the two works

could be explained, while the divergences would reflect the changing historical

circumstances between the two centuries and between the two priestly-oriented groups.

Foremost among these would be the destruction of the temple rather than separation from

a still-standing temple and the central figure of Christ. Having such a magnetizing figure

of Christ, who attracts all of the imagery found in the earlier works, would partly explain

the increased interest in Melchizedek from the Songs to Hebrews. Both Christ’s death

and the temple’s destruction would have increased the eschatological tone of Hebrews—

something absent from the Songs. Both elements together also would have contributed to

the increased discussion of the relationship between heavenly and earthly and present and

past in terms of sanctuary, covenant, and priesthood.

   435  

The consequences of each model are significant. If there was a more direct

relationship, that would mean an ongoing interaction between a particular component of

the scattered (sectarian?) priesthood and the emergent early Christian community in

Flavian Rome as both attempted to come to terms with the temple’s destruction in a

situation where both would be daily reminded of its destruction through the various

projects in the Roman Forum. The emigration of the priesthood and other Judeans to

Rome and places like Alexandria after the temple’s destruction increases the likelihood of

such an interaction (Josephus, War 7.5). If the liturgies are pre- or para-sectarian, they

would have had a wider distribution, making an encounter with them more likely. The

discovery of the Songs outside Qumran at Masada might suggest that others who valued

them also took them outside the Qumran community.

The other model would suggest a much more widespread conception of the

interrelationship between the Sabbath and the sanctuary (particularly the Tabernacle) in

this period than the current evidence indicates, and that reading Exodus 25 was a typical

way of entering into the discussion of this relationship. These two options are not

mutually exclusive. In finding similar circumstances, the author of Hebrews might have

been inspired by something like the Songs or someone who knew them while undergoing

his own investigation of the priestly writings and other materials, particularly the Psalms.

The author of Hebrews probably did not read or hear the Songs recited, since the

work shows no evidence of facility with Hebrew, but there is a possibility that he knew

someone who had. This intermediate model would hypothesize the author somewhere in

the Roman Empire searching the scriptures to find meaning and a sense of the sacred in

the aftermath of the destruction of the temple, and who finds partial prompting in
   436  

dialogue with a priestly figure that this meaning and sense can be not only found in

heaven, but through the Sabbath and the heavenly Tabernacle via Moses’ vision. This

indirection might explain the particular distribution of source material discussed and

alluded to in both works: explaining the similarities of interpretation and reflection

unique to these two works in antiquity, while explaining why the similarities stop short

and allowing for the important differences of interest and purpose of writing and stronger

emphasis in both works of non-shared materials, such as the emphasis on Ezekiel in the

Songs versus the emphasis on the Psalms in general and Psalm 110 in particular in

Hebrews. At the same time, as one increasingly posits different degrees of separation

with increased intermediaries, one begins to approach the first circumstantial model that

makes these reflections both more diffused and widespread. Nonetheless, given that

there were multiple ways to come to terms with the destruction of the temple, including

other ways to bring together rest and the sanctuary (e.g., non-Sabbath-related rest in an

earthly eschatological sanctuary), the Songs and Hebrews demonstrate greater proximity

to one another than either one does with, for example, 4 Ezra or 2 Baruch.

In sum, given the range of options available to come to terms with the destruction

of the temple, it is quite striking to find such rare similarities between Hebrews and the

Songs, whether mutually inspired by the same priestly groups and traditions, or those

who copied, revered, and practiced the Sabbath liturgies interacting with the author of

Hebrews after the temple’s destruction. The differences derived from direct exegesis in

Hebrews versus different degrees of allusion in the Songs can be explained by the

difference of genre between a homily and a liturgy. No matter what model, many

differences in purpose and interpretation can also be explained by the figure of Christ and
   437  

the temple’s destruction. While one might prefer more examples of exegetic similarities

or allusion, such as a reflection on Ezekiel in Hebrews and a reflection on Ps. 110 in the

Songs, beyond their particular interpretations of Moses’ vision in Exod. 25:9, 40 to posit

a more direct influence, such a possibility cannot be discounted.

Trajectories for Future Research

By investigating these Second Temple and New Testament articulations of the

relationship between the Sabbath and the sanctuary, embedded within the scheme of

creation, enthronement, sanctuary, and rest, this study opens up new possible trajectories

of the ongoing morphology of this relationship. Firstly, it alerts one to the possibility that

other ancient Jewish and Christian works may have appropriated this pattern and this

particular relationship, adapting it to their own situations and to new ends. Focusing on

this period, it also prompts considerations of other ways sacred space and sacred time

come together ritually and textually, whether focusing on the Sabbath and the sanctuary

or other holy places and times. A renewed study of the narratives, rites, and symbolism

of the pilgrimage festivals, as the appointed times when people journeyed to and gathered

at the temple, would aid in understanding the varying dynamics of sacred space and

sacred time. For the New Testament, the Gospel of John, Revelation, and perhaps 1 Peter

would be the next places to study other forms of sacred spatiotemporality. In the Gospel

of John, for example, Jesus attracted all of the sacred spatial imagery of the sanctuary and

the sacred temporal imagery of most sacred appointed times (Sabbath, Passover, Sukkoth,

and Hanukkah), himself becoming the intersection of sacred space and sacred time.9

                                                                                                               
9
Mary L. Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville: The
Liturgical Press, 2001).
   438  

While one reconstructed trajectory of the Sabbath-sanctuary relationship has

moved through the Mishnah and Talmudim, regarding the relationship between the

Sabbath and Tabernacle, into Kabbalah where in some works the Sabbath and the

Tabernacle are dual expressions of the Shekhinah, and finally into Hasidism, in which

they are equated,10 its appearance in Hebrews opens up new possible trajectories within

Christian works, making the history of the Sabbath-sanctuary relationship a more

complex phenomenon.

If so, there may be intervening complications to the relationship as the day of rest

shifts from the Sabbath to the “Lord’s Day” and as the “days” lose immediate temporal

associations and become eternal. The degree to which rest becomes less associated with

the seventh day and becomes more associated with the Lord’s Day among any particular

group of early Christians would affect how the Sabbath-sanctuary relationship endures or

if it begins to lose traction in early Christian sources. Nonetheless, the temporal

transference may transfer the entire relationship, morphing the sacred and heavenly

spatiotemporal configuration, aligning the Lord’s Day and the heavenly realm.

Early Christian literature provides a vast field of opportunity to see how this

priestly equation survives in new forms among different groups. How might it relate, for

example, to the aeonic emanations in the divine Pleroma in the literature of the Nag

Hammadi Codices? How does this relationship emerge, or how is it ignored, in Christian

commentaries on either the Hebrew Bible or on Hebrews (e.g., John Chrysostom’s

Homilies on Hebrews)?

                                                                                                               
10
Green, “Sabbath as Temple.”
   439  

Augustine’s City of God provides a prominent example of its appropriation and

alteration in changing circumstances in the wake of the sacking of the city of Rome,

providing an alternative to that city. Augustine’s City of God ends on an exposition on

the eternal Sabbath (XXII.30). For Augustine, life in the City of God is a perpetual

Sabbath, a state of eternal felicity. Here, as in Hebrews, Sabbath is not fully associated

with weekly observance, but represents the soul’s rest in heavenly existence:

That will truly be the greatest of Sabbaths; a Sabbath that has no evening, the
Sabbath that the Lord approved at the beginning of creation, where it says, “God
rested on the seventh day from all his works, which he had been doing; and God
blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on that day he rested from all
his works, which God had begun to do.” We ourselves shall become that seventh
day, when we have been replenished and restored by his blessing and
sanctification. (City of God XXII.30; trans. Henry Bettenson)

Whereas in earlier works, the people are the temple of God, now they are the Sabbath;

while partaking in the enduring Sabbath, they become Sabbath because they partake in its

holiness and blessedness, being sanctified and blessed by God as God blessed and

sanctified the Sabbath at creation. Augustine also says the Sabbath is the seventh and

final age in which God will again rest and the faithful with God; as the faithful are

themselves the seventh day, God finds rest in them as they find rest in God. One might

also note the framing of Confessions, beginning with the statement, “our heart is restless

until it finds rest in you” (I.i.(1); trans. Chadwick) and ending with an exposition of the

unending Sabbath, in which the seeker after God finally finds rest in God (XIII.xxxv(50)-

xxxviii(53)). Sabbath becomes, therefore, the symbol of sanctification in the heavenly

city and the interface between God and God’s people mutually resting in one another.

This Sabbath may have no evening, but it endures into eternity as the eighth day, the

Lord’s Day, and “the kingdom which has no end.”

   440  

Augustine’s works provide one important possibility among many. Given his

influential position in later Christianity, it would be a worthwhile project to see how the

complex of relations found in Hebrews developed over the intervening centuries before

getting to Augustine’s formulations of the relationship between the eternal Sabbath and

the eternal City and to what extent it was reconsidered by later Christians reflecting on

their traditions through Augustine, whose sacred spatiotemporal formulation has come a

long way since the Priestly formers of the Pentateuch and Ezekiel.

Investigating the intersections of sacred space and sacred time elucidates the

many ways the sacred, and thereby one’s relationship to the divine, in a particular work

of literature, rite, and group is organized and reconfigured in narrative and ritual in

shifting social circumstances. As such, hopefully this study can provide a catalyst and

conversation partner for those investigating the spatial and temporal configurations of

holiness in other places and at different times. Bakhtin considered the Chronotope the

“gates” into literature; the holy Chronotope has proven to be a gate into the divine.
   441  

Bibliography
 
Abegg, Martin. "Who Ascended to Heaven? 4Q491, 4Q427, and the Teacher of
Righteousness." Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ed. C.A.
Evans and P.W. Flint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. 61-73.
 
Albright, W.F. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press,
1953.
 
Alexander, Philip. Mystical Texts: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Related
Manuscripts. London: T&T Clark, 2006.
 
Allison, Dale C. "The Silence of the Angels: Reflections on the Songs of the Sabbath
Sacrifice." RevQ 13 (1988): 189-97.
 
Andreasen, Niels-Erik A. The Old Testament Sabbath. SBL Dissertation Series 7;
Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972.
 
Apowitzer, V. "The Heavenly Temple in the Agada." Tarbiz 2 (1931): 137-53, 257-87.
 
Asad, Talal. Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity
and Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
 
Asiedu-Peprah, Martin. Johannine Sabbath Conflicts as Juridical Controversy.
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 132;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
 
Attridge, Harold W. "'Let Us Strive to Enter that Rest': The Logic of Hebrews 4:1-11."
HTR 73.1 (1980): 279-88.
 
—. "Paraenesis in a Homily (λόγος παρακλήσεως): The Possible Location of, and
Socialization in, the 'Epistle to the Hebrews'." Semeia 50 (1990): 211-26.
 
—. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.
 
Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Trans.
Willard R. Trask. Fiftieth Anniversary Edition. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2003.
 
Bakhtin, M. M. "Forms of Time and of the Chronotope of the Novel: Notes Toward a
HIstorical Poetics." The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. Michael
Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1982. 84-258.
 
   442  

—. Problems of Dostoevky's Poetics. Ed. Caryl Emerson. Trans. Caryl Emerson.

Minneapolis: Univeristy of Minnesota Press, 1984.
 
Bakhtin, M. M. "The Bildungsroman and Its Significance in the History of Realism
(Toward a Historical Typology of the Novel)." Speech Genres and Other Late
Essays. Ed. Caryl Emerson and MIchael Holquist. Trans. Vern W. McGree.
Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986. 10-59.
 
Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Trans. Hélène Iswolsky. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1984.
 
Barker, Margaret. The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in
Jerusalem. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008.
 
Barrett, C. K. "The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews." The Background of the
New Testament and Its Eschatology. Ed. W.D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1964. 363-93.
 
Baumgarten, Joseph M. "The Qumran Sabbath Shirot and Rabbinic Merkabah
Traditions." RevQ 13 (1988): 199-213.
 
Beard, Mary. "The triumph of the absurd: Roman street theatre." Rome the Cosmopolis.
Cambridge University Press, 2003. 21-43.
 
Bell, Catherine. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
 
Berkowitz, Beth A. Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic
and Christian Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
 
Black, C. Clifton. "The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian
Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills." HTR 81.1 (1988): 1-18.
 
Bloch-Smith, E. M. ""Who is the King of Glory?": Solomon's Temple and its
Symbolism." Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology
in Honor of Philip J. King. Ed. M.D. Coogan, J.C. Exum and L.E. Stager.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, n.d. 18-31.
 
Boer, Roland, ed. Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2007.
 
Boustan, Ra'anan S. "Angels in the Architecture: Temple Art and the Poetics of Praise in
the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice." Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in
Late Antique Religions. Ed. Ra'anan S. Boustan and Annette Yoshiko Reed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 195-212.
 
   443  

Castelli, Elizabeth A. Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power. Louisville: Westminster /

John Knox Press, 1991.
 
Charlesworth, James, Carol A. Newsom and et al. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 4B, Angelic Liturgy:
Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999.
 
Chazon, Esther G. "Liturgical Communion with Angels at Qumran." Sapiential,
Liturgical, and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Published in Memory of Maurice
Baillet. Ed. Daniel K. Falk, Florentino García Martínez and Eileen M. Schuller.
Leiden: Brill, 2000. 95-105.
 
Chazon, Esther. "The Qedushah Liturgy and Its History in Light of the Dead Sea
Scrolls." From Qumran to Cairo: Studies in the History of Prayer. Ed. Joseph
Tabory. Jerusalem: Hatsa'at Orhot, 1999. 7-17.
 
Clements, R. E. God and Temple. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965.
 
Collins, A. Yarbro. "Aristobulus." Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2. New York:
Doubleday, 1985. 2 vols. 831-42.
 
Collins, J. J. "A Throne in the Heavens: Apotheosis in Pre-Christian Judaism." Death,
Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys. Ed. J. J. Collins and M. Fishbane. Albany:
SUNY Press, 1995. 43-58.
 
Collins, John J. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Routledge, 1997.
 
Coloe, Mary L. God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel.
Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2001.
 
Cooper, Alan and Bernard R. Goldstein. "The Development of the Priestly Calendars (I):
The Daily Sacrifice and the Sabbath." HUCA 74 (2003): 1-20.
 
Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of Religion
of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
 
Dalley, Stephanie. "The Epic of Creation." Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the
Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000. 227-77.
 
D'Angelo, Mary Rose. Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews. Missoula: Scholars Press,
1979.
 
Davila, James R. "Heavenly Ascents in the Dead Sea Scrolls." The Dead Sea Scrolls after
Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Ed. Peter W. Flint and James C.
VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999. 461-85.
   444  

 
—. Liturgical Works. Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls 6; Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
 
—. "The Hodayot Hymnist and the Four Who Entered Paradise." RevQ 17 (1996): 457-
78.
 
—. "The Macrocosmic Temple, Scriptural Exegesis, and the Songs of the Sabbath
Sacrifice." DSD 9.1 (2002): 1-19.
 
de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Customs. Trans. John McHugh. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.
 
DeSilva, David A. Bearing Christ's Reproach: The Challenge of Hebrews in an Honor
Culture. North Richland Hills: BIBAL Press, 1999.
 
—. "Despising Shame: A Cultural-Anthropological Investigation of the Epistle to the
Hebrews." JBL 113.3 (1994): 439-61.
 
—. "Exchanging Favor for Wrath: Apostasy in Hebrews and Patron-Client
Relationships." JBL 115.1 (1996): 91-116.
 
—. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle "to the
Hebrews". Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
 
Dey, L.K.K. The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews.
Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975.
 
Douglas, Mary. Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
 
—. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London:
Routledge, 2002 [original 1966].
 
Edersheim, Alfred. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services. Updated Edition. Peabody:
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994.
 
Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Trans. Willard R.
Trask. Orlando: Harcourt, Inc., 1959.
 
Elior, Rachel. The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism. Trans. David
Louvish. Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004.
 
Eskanazi, Tamara C., Daniel J. Harrington and William Shea, The Sabbath in Jewish and
Christian Traditions. New York: Crossroad, 1991.
 
Fennelly, J.M. "The Persepolis Ritual." BA 43 (1980): 135-62.
   445  

 
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin. "Ascent to Heaven and the Embodiment of Heaven: A
Revisionist Reading of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice." SBLSP. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1998. 367-99.
 
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H.T. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
 
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan.
New York: Vintage Books, 1995.
 
Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. In the Wake of Goddesses: Women, Culture and the Biblical
Transformation of Pagan Myth. New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1992.
 
Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. "Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel." The
Word Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of
His Sixtieth Birthday. Ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O'Connor. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1983.
 
Fuller, Christopher C. "Matthew's Genealogy as Eschatological Satire: Bakhtin Meets
Form Criticism." Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies. Ed. Roland Boer.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. 119-132.
 
Gärtner, Bertil. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A
Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New
Testament. Trans. Temple and Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1965.
 
Gane, Roy E. Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and
Theodicy. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
 
—. "Privative Preposition ‫ מן‬in Purification Offering Pericopes and the Changing Face of
'Dorian Gray'." JBL 127.2 (2008): 209-222.
 
Gaston, Lloyd. No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem
in the Synoptic Gospels. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
 
Geertz, Clifford. "Religion as a Cultural System." The Interpretation of Cultures. New
York: Basic Books, 1973.
 
Gennep, Arnold van. The Rites of Passage. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960.
 
George, Mark K. Israel's Tabernacle as Social Space. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2009.
 
   446  

Gleason, Randall C. "The Old Testament Background of Rest in Hebrews 3:7-4:11."

Bibliotheca Sacra 157 (2000): 281-303.
 
Goodman, Martin. "Nerva, the Fiscus Judaicus and Jewish Identity." JRS 79 (1989): 40-
44.
 
Gray, George Buchanan. Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice. New
York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1971 [original 1925].
 
—. "The Heavently Temple and the Heavenly Altar." Expositor VIII (1908): 385-402,
530-46.
 
Gray, Patrick. Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of
Superstition. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
 
Green, Arthur. "Sabbath as Temple: Some Thoughts on Space and Time in Judaism." Go
and Study (1980): 287-305.
 
Greenberg, Moshe. "Crimes and Punishments." Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Vol.
1. New York: Abingdon, 1962. 737-41.
 
Greenblatt, Stephen. Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in
Renaissance England. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.
 
Greenfield, J.C. and M. Sokoloff. "An Astrological Text from Qumran (4Q318) and
Reflections on Some Zodiacal Names." RevQ 16 (1995): 507-525.
 
Gruen, Erich S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1998.
 
Hamm, Dennis. "Faith in the Epistle to the Hebrews." CBQ 52.2 (1990): 270-91.
 
Haran, Menahem. "Temple and Community in Ancient Israel." Temple in Society. Ed.
Michael V. Fox. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1988.
 
—. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985.
 
Harrington, D. J. "Pseudo-Philo." Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Ed. James H.
Charlesworth. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1985. 297-377.
 
Hawking, Stephen. Brief History of Time: The Updated and Expanded Tenth
Anniversary Edition. New York: Bantam Books, 1998.
 
Hayward, C. T. R. The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook. London: Routledge,
1996.
 
   447  

Heschel, Abraham Joshua. The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man. New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005.
 
Himmelfarb, Martha. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993.
 
Himmelfarb, Martha. "Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense: The Law of the
Priesthood in Aramaic Levi and Jubilees." Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities
in Late Antique Religions. Ed. Ra'anan Boustan and Annette Yoshiko Reed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 103-122.
 
Hoenig, Sidney B. "The Designated Number of Kinds of Labor Prohibited on the
Sabbath." JQR 68.4 (1978): 193-208.
 
Hofius, Otfried. Katapausis. Die Vorstellung vom Endzeit. Ruheort in Hebräerbrief.
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 11; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1970.

Hopkins, Keith and Mary Beard. The Colosseum. London: Profile Books, 2005.

Horton, Fred L. The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the
Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Cambridge University
Press, 1976.

Hurowitz, Victor. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in
Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. JSOTSS 115; Sheffield
Academic Press, 1992.

Hurst, L.D. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Isaacs, Marie E. Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.

Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Harps that Once...: Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1997.

Joyce, Paul M. "Temple and Worship in Ezekiel 40-48." Temple and Worship in Biblical
Israel. Ed. John Day. London: T & T Clark, 2007. 145-63.

Juel, Donald. Messiah and Temple. Missoula: Scholars Pres, 1977.

Käsemann, Ernst. The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the
Hebrews. Trans. Roy A. Harrisville and Irving L. Sandberg. Minneapolist:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1984.
   448  

Kant, Immanuel. The Nature of Geography. Trans. R. Hartshorne. Second Edition.

Washington D.C., 1946.

Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000.
 
—. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of
Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Klijn, A. F. J. "2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch." Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1.
New York: Doubleday, 1985. 615-52.

Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.

Koester, Craig R. The Dwelling of God: The Tabernalce in the Old Testament,
Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament. Catholic Biblical
Quarterly Mongraph Series 22; Washington D.C.: The Catholic Biblical
Association of America, 1989.

Kramer, Samuel Noah. "The Temple in Sumerian Literature." Temple in Society. Ed.
Michael V. Fox. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1988. 1-16.

Lampe, Peter. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries.
Trans. Michael Steinhauser. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

Lefebvre, Henri. Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time and Everyday Life. Trans. Stuart Elden
and Gerald Moore. London: Continuum, 2004.

—. The Production of Space. Trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith. Malden: Blackwell

Publishing, 1991.

Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. HarperSanFrancisco,
1985.

Lincoln, Bruce. Discourse and the Construction of Society: Comparatie Studies in Myth,
Ritual, and Classification. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

MacDonald, Dennis. "A Response to R. Goldenberg and D.J. Harrington, S.J." The
Sabbath in Jewish adn Christian Traditions. Ed. Tamara C. Eskanazi, Daniel J.,
S.J. Harrington and William Shea. New York: Crossroad, 1991. 57-61.

MacRae, George W. "The Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the
Hebrews." Semeia 12 (1978): 179-99.
   449  

Martínez, Florentino García. "The Temple Scroll and the New Jerusalem." The Dead Sea
Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Ed. Peter W. Flint and
James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999. 2:431-59.

Martínez, Florentino García, and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study
Edition. 2 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997-8.
 
McGrath, James F. The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish
Context. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009.

McKay, Heather A. Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in

Ancient Judaism. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.

Meyers, Carol. Exodus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Middlemas, Jill. "Divine Reversal and the Role of the Temple in Trito-Isaiah." Temple
and Worship in Biblical Israel. Ed. John Day. London: T & T Clark, 2007. 164-
87.

Milgrom, Jacob. "Israel's Sanctuary: The Priestly 'Picture of Dorian Gray'." Revue
Biblique 83.3 (1976): 390-99.

—. Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics. A Continental Commentary; Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, 2004.

—. "The Preposition ‫ מן‬in the ‫ חטאת‬Pericopes." JBL 126.1 (2007): 161-3.

Morray-Jones, Christopher. "The Temple Within." Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish
and Christian Mysticism. Ed. April D. DeConick. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2006. 145-78.

Morson, Gary Saul and Caryl Emerson. Mikhael Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics.
Standford: Stanford University Press, 1990.

Nahin, P. Time Machines. Second Edition. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1999.

Newsom, Carol A. "Bakhtin, the Bible, and Dialogic Truth." JR 76 (1996): 290-306.

—. "Merkabah Exegesis in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot." JJS 38.1 (1987): 11-30.

Newsom, Carol A. "'Sectually Explicit' Literature from Qumran." The Hebrew Bible and
its Interpreters. Ed. William Henry Propp, Baruch Halpern and David Noel
Freedman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. 167-87.
   450  

Newsom, Carol A. "Spying Out the Land: A Report from Genology." Bakhtin and Genre
Theory in Biblical Studies. Ed. Roland Boer. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2007. 19-30.

—. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2003.

—. The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran.

Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2004.

Newsom, Carol. "Shirot 'Olat Hashabbat." Qumran Cave 4. VI, Poetical and Liturgical
Texts, Part I. Ed. Esther Eshel. DJD 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. 173-401, plates
xvi-xxxi.

—. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.

Nitzan, Bilhah. "Harmonic and Mystical Characteristics in Poetical and Liturgical

Writings from Qumran." JQR 85.1-2 (1994): 163-83.

—. Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

Novikov, Igor. Black Holes and the Universe. Trans. Vitaly Kisin. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Noy, David. Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers. London: Duckworth, 2000.

Patai, Raphael. Man and Temple in Ancient Jewish Myth and Ritual. London: Thomas
Nelso and Sons, Ltd., 1947.

Peterson, David. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection

in the "Epistle to the Hebrews". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Poe, Edgar Allen. Eureka, A Prose Poem: Or the Physical and Metaphysical Universe.
New York: Putnam, 1948.

Puech, E. "Quelques aspects de la restauration du Rouleau des Hymnes." JJS 39 (1988):

38-55.

Rajak, Tessa. Josephus: The HIstorian and His Society. Second Edition. London:
Duckworth, 2002.

Robinson, Gnana. The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A
Comprehensive Exegetical Approach. Bangalore: UTC, 1998.
   451  

Rowland, Christopher. "The Visions of God in Apocalyptic Literature." JSJ 10 (1979):

137-54.

Rutgers, Leonard Victor. "Roman Policy toward the Jews: Expulsions from the City of
Rome during the First Century CE." Judaism and Christianity in Firsty Century
Rome. Ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998. 93-116.

Schaefer, Charles W. "Poe's "Eureka": The Macrocosmic Analogue." Journal of

Aesthetics and Art Criticism 29.3 (1971): 353-65.

Schenck, Kenneth L. "A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1."
JBL 120.3 (2001): 469-85.

—. Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of Sacrifice. Cambridge

University Press, 2007.

Schenck, Kenneth L. "In the Absence of the Temple." Hebrews and the Parting of the
Ways. Forthcoming.

Schiffman, Lawrence H. "Merkavah Speculation at Qumran: The 4Q Serek Shirot 'Olat

ha-Shabbat." Mystics, Philosophers, and Politicians: Essays in Jewish Intellectual
History in Honor of Alexander Altman. Ed. Jehuda Reinharz, Daniel
Swetschinski and with Kalman P. Bland. Durham: Duke University Press, 1982.
15-47.

Schilbrack, Kevin. "Religion, Models of, and Reality: Are We Through with Geertz?"
JAAR 73.2 (2005): 429-52.

Schofield, Alison and James C. VanderKam. "Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?" JBL
124.1 (2005): 73-87.

Scholer, John M. Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTSS 49;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.

Segert, Stanislav. "Observations on the Poetics Structures in the Songs of the Sabbath
Sacrifice." RevQ 13 (1988): 215-23.

Siegfried, Tom. Strange Matters: Undiscoverd Ideas at the Fronters of Space and Time.
New York: Berkley Books, 2002.

Slingerland, Dixon. "Suetonius Claudius 25.4, Acts 18, and Paulus Orius' Historianum
Adversum Paganos Libri VII: Dating the Claudian Expulsion(s) of Roman
Cassius Dio." JQR 83.1-2 (1992): 127-44.
   452  

—. "Suetonius Claudius 25.4 and the Account in Cassius Dio." JQR 79.4 (1989): 305-
322.

Smith, J. Z. To Take Place: Toward a Theory in Ritual. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1987.

Smith, Mark S. "The Baal Cycle." Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Ed. Simon B. Parker. SBL
Writings from the Ancient World 9; Scholars Press, 1997. 81-180.

Smith, Morton. "Two Ascended to Heaven-Jesus and the Author of 4Q491." Jesus and
the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ed. James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
290-301.

Smith, William Robertson. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. London: Adam and
Charles Black, 1894.

Sparks, Kenton L. "Enûma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent
Judaism." JBL 126.4 (2007): 625-48.

Strugnell, J. "The Angelic Liturgy at Qumrân-Serek ." n.d.

Sullivan, Kevin P. Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Angels
and Humans in Ancient Jewish LIterature and the New Testament. Leiden: Brill,
2004.

Swartz, Michael D. "The Dead Sea Scrolls and Later Jewish Magic and Mysticism." DSD
8.2 (2001): 182-93.

Theissen, G. Untersuchen zum Hebräerbrief. Gütersloh, 1969.

Tuan, Yi-Fu. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1977.

Turner, Victor. Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1967.

—. From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: PAJ
Publications, 1982.

—. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New Brunswick: Aldine

Transaction, 1969.

Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York: Penguin, 1997.

Vines, Michael E. "The Apocalyptic Chronotope." Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical
Studies. Ed. Roland Boer. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. 109-117.
   453  

Walters, James C. "Romans, Jews, and Christians: The Impact of the Romans on
Jewish/Christian Relations in First-Century Rome." Judaism and Christianity in
First-Century Rome. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1998. 175-95.

Weinfeld, Moshe. "Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord--the Problem of
the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1-2:3." Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en
l'honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. Ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor. Verlag: Butzer &
Bercker Kevalaer; Neukirchenen Vorlag: Neukirchen--Vluyn, 1981. 501-512.

Weiss, Herold. A Day of Gladness: The Sabbath among Jews and Christians in Antiquity.
Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003.

—. "Sabbatismos in the Epistle to the Hebrews." CBQ 58 (1996): 363-90.

Williamson, R. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Wills, Lawrence. "The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early
Christianity." HTR 77 (1984): 277-99.

Wise, Michael Owen. "4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam." RevQ 57-8/15.1-2
(1991-1992): 103-32.

Wolfson, Elliot R. "Mysticism and Poetic-Liturgical Compositions from Qumran: A

Response to Bilhah Nitzan." JQR 85.1-2 (1994): 185-202.

Wolfson, Elliot R. "Seven Mysteries of Knowledge: Qumran E/Sotericism Recovered."

The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel. Ed. Hindy
Najman and Judith H. Newman. Leiden: Brill, 2003. 177-215.

Wray, Judith Hoch. Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the
Gospel of Truth: Early Christian Homiletics of Rest. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1998.

Wright, David P. "Unclean and Clearn (OT)." Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. David Noel
Freedman. Vol. 6. New York: Doubleday, 1992. 6 vols. 739.

Yang, Yong-Eui. Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew's Gospel. JSNTSS 139; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Yerushalmi, Yosef. Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory. Seattle: University of
Washington Press, 1982.