An Introduction to the Book of Hebrews

Hebrews and the Story Line of the Bible

The story line of the Scriptures can only be sketched here briefly, but it is important to put Hebrews in canonical context, for it is part of a library of books that constitute Holy Scripture. We won’t truly understand Hebrews unless we see how it relates at least in some fashion to the rest of Scripture.

The Scriptures open in Genesis with God as the sovereign King creating the world and everything in it. Human beings are made in the image of God and appointed to rule the world for God (Gen. 1:26–27). They are mandated to rule the world under God’s lordship and for his glory. Instead of trusting and obeying God, Adam and Eve defied him and refused to submit to him (Genesis 3). Because of their transgression incited by the words of the serpent, they were spiritually separated from God and introduced death into the world. Nevertheless, death is not the final word, for God promises that the offspring of the woman will crush the serpent (Gen. 3:15).

The initial optimism engendered by the promise collapses, for human beings are radically evil. Cain was the offspring of the serpent and murdered Abel.^[1] The offspring of the serpent were triumphing over the offspring of the woman, though God granted Seth to Adam and Eve to continue the lineage through which the promise would be fulfilled (Gen. 4:25). Because the corruption was so great, because the offspring of the serpent were spreading so rapidly, God had to destroy them with the flood, showing that he rules and reigns even when evil seems to have the upper hand. God established a covenant with Noah, pledging to preserve the world until he accomplished redemption (Genesis 6–9). Still, the story of the tower of Babel reveals that human beings had not changed (Gen. 11:1–9); they were still inclined toward evil and lived to make a name for themselves instead of living for the glory and honor and praise of the one true God. Genesis 1–11 unveils the depth of human evil so that readers will grasp that victory over the serpent is a massive undertaking. The evil in human beings is no trivial matter. A demonic rejection of God and an embrace of evil afflict human beings.

1. All the offspring of Adam and Eve come into the world as the offspring of the serpent, and hence those who belong to God are the recipients of his grace.

Despite human evil, which defies the imagination, God is gracious. He chose one man through whom he would fulfill the promise made to the woman. He promises Abraham that he will have land (Canaan), offspring (Isaac), and universal blessing (Gen. 12:1–3). Still the story rolls on slowly. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never possessed the land, and Abraham found it agonizingly difficult to have even one child! The Lord teaches him through the birth of Isaac that the promise will only be fulfilled through God himself, that human beings can’t contribute to the promise’s fulfillment. Isaac and Jacob learned the same lesson so that, when Genesis ends, Israel was in the wrong land (Egypt), there were only about 70 Israelites (when God promised they would be as many as the stars of the sky), and there was certainly not universal blessing. What is said here could be misunderstood, for there could scarcely be countless descendants in three generations, and Joseph as Pharaoh’s right-hand man did bless the nations.

When Exodus opens, the promise of offspring for Israel is being fulfilled, for their population was exploding, which terrified the Egyptians. The Lord intended to show Israel again and again that salvation is his work, not theirs. Hence, he freed Israel from Egypt through Moses with great signs and wonders (Exodus 1–18). The Lord crushed the offspring of the serpent (Pharaoh), who attempted to annihilate the people from whom the offspring of the woman would come (Gen. 3:15). Israel recognized that the Lord had redeemed them, fulfilling his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Israel was adopted as God’s son (Exod. 4:22), becoming his special possession and a kingdom of priests if they followed the Lord’s instructions (Exod. 19:5–6). The redemption from Egypt becomes a type and anticipation of the redemption that would be accomplished in Jesus Christ.

The Lord entered into a covenant with Israel, choosing them as his special people (cf. Exodus 19–24). If Israel obeyed the covenant stipulations, they would be blessed; but if they transgressed what the Lord commanded, they would experience the curses of the covenant (Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 26–28). The Lord didn’t demand perfection to remain in the covenant, for sacrifices were instituted to grant forgiveness for Israel’s transgressions (Leviticus 1–7, 16). The Lord also impressed on Israel his holiness. He dwelt with his people in the tabernacle (Exodus 25–40), but those who treated the Lord with contempt would be destroyed (Leviticus 10), as the thunderstorm which gripped Mount Sinai clearly taught the people. Hebrews, of course, focuses on the final inadequacy of the sacrifices offered, and emphasizes the inauguration of the new covenant. Ultimately, the old covenant was a failure. The sacrifices didn’t cleanse the conscience of sin and provide free access to God, nor did the old covenant inscribe the law on the heart. But we are getting ahead of the story here!

The next element of the promise of Abraham was ready to be fulfilled. Israel was about to take possession of Canaan. We read in Numbers how the people failed to follow the Lord’s instructions. After seeing the Lord’s signs and wonders that routed the Egyptians, Israel, amazingly enough, didn’t believe the Lord could bring them into the land, and hence they disobeyed his instructions. Hebrews picks up on the sin of the wilderness generation (Heb. 3:12–4:13), using it to warn his readers not to follow the example of Israel. The story wasn’t over, however, for under Joshua Israel possessed the land of Canaan, though the story clarifies that they didn’t possess the entirety of the land. Israel’s triumphs are the Lord’s work, for they win impossible victories over foes that are far stronger than they are. Joshua concludes by saying that the Lord has given rest to Israel (Josh. 21:44; 22:4; 23:1). Hebrews picks up this theme, contending that the rest given to Israel under Joshua was not the final rest God promised. The rest under Joshua was a type and anticipation of a greater rest to come.

Upon opening Judges, we might think that paradise is around the corner. Two elements of the promise to Abraham are fulfilled: Israel had a large population and now inhabited the land of Canaan. Hundreds of years had passed since the promise was made to Abraham, but Israel now seemed to be on the cusp of blessing. It is rather stunning to see where the story goes next. Instead of moving forward, Israel slipped backward. They were in that sense like Adam in paradise. Instead of trusting and obeying the Lord, they turned toward idols so that the Lord unleashed their enemies upon them. Israel repeated a cycle of sin, defeat before enemies, repentance, and deliverance. Judges concludes with a story that echoes what happened to Lot in Sodom (Judges 20; Genesis 19). Israel was in the land, but they were not submitting to Yahweh’s lordship. Instead of blessing the nations, they were being corrupted by the nations.

When 1 Samuel opens, Israel had a corrupt priesthood and was teetering toward collapse. Still the Lord was gracious, raising up Samuel to bring the nation back to him. The kingship was instituted under Samuel when Saul was installed as the first king. If we read perceptively, the theme of kingship is actually in the narrative from the beginning. The Lord promises that kings will come from Abraham and Jacob (Gen. 17:6, 16; 35:11). Indeed, the scepter will belong to Judah, and the peoples of the world (universal blessing!) will obey him (Gen. 49:10). Balaam prophesies that a star and scepter from Israel will crush (cf. Gen. 3:15) the enemies of the Lord (Num. 24:17–19). The offspring of the woman who will destroy the serpent will come from a king in Israel. The narrative poses an implicit question: is Saul that king? On first taking the reins of power, it looked as if he might be. But Saul turned out like Adam in the garden and like Israel after possessing Canaan. Instead of trusting and obeying the Lord, he followed his own desires, and hence the Lord pledges that there will not be a Saulide dynasty.

David was anointed as king instead of Saul, and Saul became David’s mortal enemy, following the footsteps of Pharaoh (the offspring of the serpent!) who tried to destroy the chosen of the Lord. David was persecuted and on the run, but he trusted in the Lord to exalt him instead of wresting the kingdom from Saul. Finally, the Philistines killed Saul in battle, and David as king reigned over all Israel. David’s kingship was marked by his trust and obedience to the Lord. Indeed, the Lord made a covenant with David that is central to the scriptural story line. The offspring of the woman who would triumph over the serpent would come from David’s line. He would be a Davidic king, for the Lord promised David a perpetual dynasty (2 Samuel 7). According to Hebrews and the remainder of the NT, this promise finds its fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah.

Despite all of David’s virtues, he was not the one who would crush the serpent, for he too was a sinner needing forgiveness since he violated the covenant with the Lord by committing adultery with Bathsheba and murdering Uriah (2 Samuel 11). Still, when David’s son Solomon ascended to the throne, it seemed that paradise was around the corner. Israel was at peace. Solomon was a wise and judicious king, and a marvelous temple was erected to worship the Lord. Could universal blessing be far behind? But Solomon recapitulated the story we have seen over and over again. He followed the pattern of Adam in the garden, Israel in Canaan, and Saul as king. He ceased to trust in the Lord and turned to idols.

The kingdom, after Solomon’s day and as a result of his sin, was divided between the north and the south, with Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Every single king in Israel followed the pattern of the first king, Jeroboam son of Nebat, and worshiped idols. The kings of Judah had a more mixed record, for some were faithful to the Lord, though even the best of them failed to do all the Lord commanded. At the end of the day, though, both Israel and Judah gave themselves over to sin, and thus both kingdoms experienced the curses of the covenant: Israel was exiled to Assyria in 722 BC and Judah to Babylon in 586 BC. We see from this brief recapitulation of the story that Hebrews rightly maintains that the new covenant is better than the old. Such a judgment is verified by the history of Israel. The kingdom was not realized through the old covenant since both Israel and Judah did not and could not keep the prescriptions of the covenant.

The prophets came to center stage after the kingdom was instituted in Israel, warning both Israel and Judah that exile would come unless they repented and turned to the Lord. The Day of the Lord will come, and it will not be a day of salvation but a day of judgment for disobedient Israel. The prophets, however, did not only proclaim a message of judgment. Israel would go into exile, but there would be a new exodus. Israel, by the grace of God, would return to the land. There would be a new start for the people of God, and the kingdom would come with the arrival of the new exodus. And that is not all. There will be a new covenant (Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 36:26–27) in which Israel’s sins will be finally and fully forgiven. The Lord will write the law on Israel’s heart by giving them the Holy Spirit, and so they will desire to do what the Lord says. The Lord will pour out his Spirit on his people, and a new age of salvation will arise (cf. Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Joel 2:28). Creation will be renewed, and there will be a new exodus, a new covenant, and a new creation. The kingdom God promised has not been withdrawn. It will come, and a new David will reign on the throne (Hos. 3:5; Mic. 5:2–4; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–10; 55:3; Jer. 23:5–6; 30:9; 33:15 17; Ezek. 34:23–24; 37:24–25; Zech. 9:9). The new creation, the new exodus, and the new covenant will be fulfilled through a king! The serpent will be defeated, and the kingdom will come.

Israel returned from exile in 536 BC, and yet the promises of a new covenant, a new creation, and the coming kingdom were not realized. It seems that the prophecies found in the prophets only had an already-but-not-yet fulfillment. Remarkably Israel, by and large, did not surrender their faith. They continued to believe that the Lord would fulfill his promises to them. When the NT opens, there are a variety of opinions and sects in Israel, but there was a common belief that the Lord would keep his kingdom promises. Most believed that the great promises would be realized only if Israel was obedient to the Torah.

The events in the Gospels took place before Hebrews was written and hence are part of the theological backdrop of the letter. We can hardly do justice to the message of the Gospels here, but certain themes stand out. First, Jesus is the new David promised by the prophets. He is the one through whom the blessing promised to Abraham and David would be fulfilled. Second, Jesus teaches that the kingdom has arrived in his ministry. The kingdom has come because the king has come! Third, Jesus clearly teaches that he is the one who will give the Spirit to his people (cf. Matt. 3:11–12 par.; John 14–16); the promises of return from exile, a new covenant, and a new creation would come to pass through God’s Spirit. Fourth, Jesus is the Son of Man who will receive the kingdom (cf. Dan. 7:9–14). He is the Son of God who is Immanuel, God with us (Matt. 1:23). He is the Word of God (John 1:1–18) who is fully divine (cf. John 5:23). He existed before Abraham was born (John 8:58). He is the Bread of the Life, the Light of the World, the Good Shepherd, the Resurrection and the Life, the Way and the Truth and the Life, and the True Vine. Fifth, at the Last Supper Jesus teaches that the new covenant is instituted with his death (Matt. 26:26–29 par.). Jesus is the Servant of the Lord (cf. Isaiah 53) who took upon himself the sins of his people. The Gospels have been called passion narratives with an extended introduction, for the climax of the story comes with Jesus’s death and resurrection, and all the Gospels teach that through Jesus’s death and resurrection forgiveness is granted (e.g., Matt. 1:21; 20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:19–20; John 1:29; 6:51; 11:49–52).

Much more could be said. What is striking in the story of the Gospels is that the people of Israel, except for a few disciples, failed to see what was right before their eyes. The problem that plagued Israel throughout its history still persisted. They continued to resist God’s revelation. Jesus wasn’t embraced as Israel’s deliverer. He was despised as a messianic pretender, especially since they thought his teaching didn’t accord with the law. Hence, instead of crowning Jesus as the king, they crucified him on the cross. They didn’t realize that Jesus was the Passover Lamb, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Word of God, and the Servant of the Lord of Isaiah 53. They didn’t understand that through Jesus’s death on the cross the new covenant was instituted as he taught at the Last Supper. They didn’t realize that the forgiveness that the new covenant promised (Jer. 31:34) was accomplished through Jesus’s death.

Death was not the end of the story. God vindicated Jesus by raising him from the dead. The resurrection (Isa. 26:19; Ezekiel 37; Dan. 12:2) signaled the arrival of the new creation and age to come. In Jesus the return from exile (which is the coming of the kingdom) had arrived, though it won’t be consummated until the second coming. The new covenant was inaugurated with his death and the gift of the Spirit. The new creation had come with his resurrection, and he was most certainly the new David. The prophecies of the OT were all fulfilled in him. And yet there was a proviso. The new creation, the new covenant, and the new exodus were inaugurated but not consummated. The kingdom had come but not in its fullness. All nations would be blessed through him, so that there was an opportunity for salvation for all peoples before the final day.

We see in the Acts of the Apostles the gift of the Holy Spirit given to the church (Acts 2), signaling that the eschaton had arrived. The new covenant is the age of the Holy Spirit, which came at Pentecost. In Acts the good news about Jesus Christ is proclaimed to both Jews and Gentiles, so that the promise given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of worldwide blessing began to be realized. As the gospel was proclaimed and believed, resistance arose from both Jews and Gentiles. The early Christians taught that salvation was only in Jesus (Acts 4:12) and that God raised him from the dead and would judge the world through him (Acts 17:31). Hence, people were required to believe in Christ and repent of their sins and receive baptism to be saved (e.g., Acts 2:38; 16:31). Interestingly, Jewish Christians continued to worship in the temple, apparently participating in the burnt offering (Acts 3:1–10), and Paul offered sacrifices in accord with the Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18; 21:23–26; cf. Num. 6:9–21). Such practices did not mean that Christians were obligated to keep the law. The Apostolic Council determined that circumcision and observance of the law were not necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1–21). Furthermore, Peter was clearly instructed that the food and purity laws were no longer required (Acts 10:1–11:18). The early Christians apparently kept some of the laws for cultural reasons (not because they were required for salvation) and to facilitate fellowship with Jews they were trying to reach with the gospel.

The place of Hebrews in the canon and the NT is significant. It comes after the Gospels and the book of Acts. Having given a brief survey of the Bible’s story line, we are not surprised that Hebrews picks up central themes from that story line. First, God’s promises have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. He is the Son of God, the Messiah, and the Melchizedekian high priest. The new covenant promised in the OT has been realized in him. Believers, therefore, are forgiven of their sins through the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Second, the fulfillment in Christ has an already but-not-yet character. The new age has been inaugurated but not consummated. So the new covenant has indeed come, but believers are not yet perfectly free from sin. They are forgiven of their sins through Christ’s sacrifice, but they still struggle with feelings of guilt. The age to come has arrived through Christ’s resurrection, and yet believers still await the coming of the heavenly city. Third, the OT is typological so that the institutions, events, and persons in the OT forecast what is to come. The OT sacrificial system points forward to the final and definitive atonement accomplished in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. The Davidic king and Israel as God’s son point ahead to Jesus as the Messiah, the unique Son of God who fulfilled what Adam was called to do in paradise. Fourth, the earthly reflects the heavenly. The tabernacle and its furnishings on earth point to a heavenly tabernacle above, to the presence of God. The OT should be read eschatologically, typologically, and spatially.

The story line rehearsed here reminds us of one of the most important themes in Hebrews. The OT should be read in light of the fulfillment in Jesus Christ. It does not apply in the same way to believers in Jesus Christ as it did to OT saints or even to those who lived when Jesus was on earth. Hence, one cannot depend on OT sacrifices to obtain forgiveness of sin, for such an activity denies the once-for-all sacrifice in Jesus Christ. To revert to OT sacrifices would be to march backward in salvation history. It would, in effect, deny that Jesus Christ has come. It would be a blatant rejection of his sacrifice. Practically speaking, then, a return to the OT cult would constitute a rejection of Jesus as Messiah, as the Son of God, and as the Melchizedekian priest. It would say that Moses and Joshua were greater than Jesus, that animal sacrifices were worth more than Jesus’s sacrifice. It would mean returning to earth when Jesus has lifted believers to heaven, to the presence of God. The warnings are so strong in Hebrews because the readers were tempted to deny Jesus and all that he had accomplished. They were close to denying that the “last days” had come and that God has spoken definitively and finally in his Son (Heb. 1:2). They were on the brink of hardening their hearts to what God had done in Jesus, just as the wilderness generation had done (Heb. 3:12–4:13). They were perilously close to acting like Esau, who sold his birthright for a pot of porridge (Heb. 12:16–17).

They were probably tempted to revert back to Judaism because they were suffering (cf. Heb. 10:32 34; 12:4–11). The writer reminds them of the pattern of OT saints and the pattern in the life of Jesus. First comes suffering and then comes glory. Already-not-yet eschatology means the reward promised to believers, the heavenly city, still awaits them.

One question that arises when comparing Acts and Hebrews should be answered here. If Paul offered sacrifices for a Nazirite vow and other early Christians continued to participate in temple activities, why does Hebrews reject so dogmatically OT sacrifices? Doesn’t that contradict what believers actually did in Acts? Answering this question is difficult since the circumstances and situation of the readers in Hebrews are not completely clear to us. I suggest the following. In the case of Paul and Peter, no one believed they were compromising their belief in Jesus Christ by participating in Jewish sacrifices. It was clear they believed Jesus was the Messiah and that his death was the only means by which one could be forgiven of sins (Acts 2:38; 4:12; 13:38–39). Apparently the readers of Hebrews were communicating something different. If they reverted to OT sacrifices, they were sending the message that Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient, that one needed to offer animal sacrifices to be saved. In other words, the readers were in effect saying that animal sacrifices were necessary for salvation and the sacrifice of Christ could be dispensed with. Participating in worship and sacrifice with other Jewish believers for cultural reasons to reach them with the gospel was one thing, but in Hebrews the readers were inclined toward something different. They were suggesting (if they continued on their path) that the sacrifice of animals and the OT cult was fundamental and crucial to obtain forgiveness of sins. They were in effect denying Christ’s sacrifice and were placing their trust in the old covenant rather than the new.

Biblical and Theological Structures

The intent in this section is to touch on some of the structural themes that undergird the biblical theology of Hebrews. The structures discussed here are not completely discrete entities, for they overlap to some extent. Still, it is helpful for the sake of clarity to look at the theology of Hebrews from a number of different angles. Here I will note the structures that inform Hebrews and at the conclusion of the commentary will focus on major themes. I hope these two different ways of exploring the theology of Hebrews will be enriching, indicating that the theology of the book can be explored from a variety of perspectives. I am not claiming that these are the only structures for examining Hebrews but that the structures here represent a helpful introduction to the letter. The structures explored here are: (1) promise-fulfillment; (2) already-but-not-yet eschatology; (3) typology; and (4) the spatial orientation of Hebrews.

Promise-Fulfillment

I understand promise-fulfillment in a particular way here. It refers to predictions or promises in the OT that, according to Hebrews, are now fulfilled. Even though promise-fulfillment is defined in such a way, there are instances where it is difficult to determine whether a particular passage is promise-fulfillment or typological. In some instances, since the categories overlap, I will argue that both categories apply.

The first verses of the book signal the theme of promise and fulfillment (Heb. 1:1–2). God had spoken in a variety of modes in the OT, but he has spoken definitively and finally in his Son. The author communicates from the outset that OT revelation, which was diverse and incomplete, finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. It is clear in reading Hebrews that the entirety of the OT should be read in light of the fulfillment in Jesus, but for the sake of space the focus here will be on specific instances of fulfillment in Hebrews. We begin with what is perhaps the favorite OT Scripture for the author: Psalm 110. Verse 1 says, “This is the declaration of the Lord to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool.’” According to Hebrews this prophecy is clearly fulfilled in Jesus Christ, for he alludes to or quotes the verse five different times (Heb. 1:2, 13; 8:1; 10:12–13; 12:2). The prophecy fits into the story line of the OT. God promises to reclaim his rule over the world through the offspring of the woman (Gen. 3:15). As the story progresses, the promise is unpacked further, for the Lord reveals that the world will be blessed through Abraham’s offspring (e.g., Gen. 12:1–3). The identity of the one through whom the promise will be realized is explained further in the time of David, for God’s rule over the world will be restored through a Davidic king according to the promise of the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7).

The citation of Psalm 110 fits into such a narrative, clarifying that according to Hebrews Jesus is the Davidic son and Lord (!) through whom the kingdom will be established. The author quotes Ps. 110:1, directly applying it to Jesus in 1:13. He also alludes at the outset of the book to Ps. 110:1, declaring that Jesus “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb. 1:3). Hebrews returns to the fulfillment of this prophecy repeatedly, affirming that the “main point” in the letter is that Jesus as high priest “sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens” (Heb. 8:1). Jesus’s sitting at God’s right hand is tied to his accomplishing final atonement for believers (Heb. 10:12; 12:2) so that he now waits until his enemies are made the footstool for his feet (Heb. 10:13). The author sees Jesus as the coruler of the universe with God, and as such he enjoys divine stature and worship (Heb. 1:6).

Jesus also fulfills Ps. 110:4, which reads, “The Lord has sworn an oath and will not take it back: ‘Forever, You are a priest like Melchizedek.’” In Psalm 110 the one who is David’s lord is also an eternal priest in the order of Melchizedek. The author of Hebrews sees this verse fulfilled in Jesus and exploits it to further his argument. Jesus’s calling as a high priest is affirmed by citing Ps. 110:4 (Heb. 5:5–6). Jesus did not assert his selfish will, claiming that he should serve as high priest. He was called and identified by God as a Melchizedekian priest so that Jesus responded to God’s claim on his life instead of deciding his own destiny.

Jesus also fulfilled the prophecy of serving as a priest like Melchizedek (Heb. 5:10) because of his humanity and participation in suffering. He could not fulfill the priestly calling if he did not share the human condition. He knew anguish and misery, learning obedience and becoming perfect in the process (Heb. 5:7–9). At the same time the author sees in Ps. 110:4 a prophecy of the resurrection, for the verse says he will serve as a priest “forever” (Heb. 7:17). Jesus fulfills this prophecy because he has “an indestructible life” (Heb. 7:16), because he conquered death through the resurrection. Another element of the prophecy in Ps. 110:4 is that it is accompanied by an oath. The author of Hebrews spies great significance in this, concluding that Jesus’s priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood since the latter was not accompanied by an oath (Heb. 7:20–22).

I noted above that God’s kingdom, promised in the OT, would be realized through a Davidic king. Hebrews appropriates this theme and sees it as fulfilled in Jesus Christ. When the author says the Son is the “heir of all things” (Heb. 1:2), he draws on a promise given to the anointed king of Israel (Ps. 2:8). A few verses later Hebrews actually quotes Ps. 2:7, which confirms that the writer identifies the Son and king of the psalm to be Jesus himself. The Messianic promise, granted to the Davidic king, finds its ultimate realization in Jesus.

In the same verse (Heb. 1:5) Hebrews also quotes 2 Sam 7:14, which comes from the chapter where the Davidic covenant is inaugurated in which the Lord promises that David’s dynasty will never end. The prophets pick up on this Davidic promise and reaffirm it regularly (Hos. 3:5; Mic. 5:2–4; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–10; 55:3; Jer. 23:5–6; 30:9; 33:15–17; Ezek. 34:23–24; 37:24–25; Zech. 9:9). Hebrews leaves us no doubt that Jesus is the true Son of David, that he is the Messiah, and thus the kingdom promised in the OT is realized in him.

The fulfillment of the new covenant stands out in Hebrews. The author quotes Jer. 31:31–34 twice (Heb. 8:8–12; 10:15–18), and it appears at the heart of his argument. The old covenant failed because Israel did not keep the covenant stipulations, and hence they were thrust into exile. The Lord promised, however, that he would make a new arrangement, a new covenant, with his people. He would implant the law within them so they could actually do what the Lord commanded. Furthermore, he would forgive the sins of his people. Interestingly Hebrews doesn’t emphasize the ability to do what the law commands. Instead, it focuses on the fact that the covenant is called “new.” If it is new, he concludes, then the fulfillment has come, and the old covenant is obsolete (Heb. 8:13). Another dimension of the new covenant is exploited. God would not make a new covenant if the old one were adequate. So the new covenant is also a “better” covenant (Heb. 7:22; 8:6). The new covenant has “a better hope” (Heb. 7:19), “better promises” (Heb. 8:6), and “better sacrifices” (Heb. 9:23), since Jesus’s blood “says better things than the blood of Abel” (Heb. 12:24). The new covenant shows that believers should no longer live under the old, for the old is inferior and ineffectual. The inadequacy of the old comes to center stage when the author considers forgiveness. What makes the NT superior is that sins are forgiven definitively and fully and forever in the sacrifice of Jesus (Heb. 9:11–10:18). It doesn’t make sense to revert to OT sacrifices since the repetition of such sacrifices illustrates their inability to cleanse the conscience from sin.

We see the promise and fulfillment theme also in terms of the rest (Heb. 3:12–4:13), the land promised to the people of God.^[2] In God’s covenant with the patriarchs, he promised them land (Gen. 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 15:18–21; 26:3; 28:4, 13–15; 35:12). The promise of the land is fulfilled under Joshua when Israel possessed Canaan, though the land was surrendered again when the northern kingdom was sent into exile by Assyria in 722 BC and the southern kingdom by Babylon in 586 BC. In NT times Israel was still in exile in that the Romans ruled over her. Hebrews teaches that the land promise has not been fulfilled in its fullness, but it doesn’t look forward to Israel’s possessing the land of Canaan. Instead, a future rest is promised to the people of God (Heb. 4:1–13), a heavenly rest that is greater than any earthly rest. The patriarchs did not obtain the entirety of what God promised, living as sojourners on the earth (Heb. 11:13). The promise of land, the promise of eschatological rest, will be fulfilled in the heavenly city, in the new Jerusalem which is coming (Heb. 11:10, 14–16; 12:22; 13:14).

2. Oren Martin, Bound for the Promised Land, NSBT (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2015).

Already-but-Not-Yet Eschatology

One of the common features of NT eschatology is its already-but-not-yet character.^[3] What this means is that God’s eschatological promises have been inaugurated through Jesus Christ but not consummated. Fulfillment has truly come in Jesus Christ, but the fulfillment isn’t complete. Hence there is an eschatological tension that characterizes the NT witness. Hebrews shares such a perspective, and this reality will be outlined briefly.

3. For Hebrews, see especially Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in Hebrews, 29–152.

We see eschatological tension in Jesus’s reigning at the right hand of God. As noted above, the reign of Jesus at God’s right hand fulfills Ps. 110:1 (cf. Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12–13; 12:2). The last days have arrived (Heb. 1:2), for the Messiah reigns as the OT prophesied.^[4] It is striking for Christians today to realize that we have been in the last days for nearly 2,000 years. As Hebrews says elsewhere, the “end of the ages” has come through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Heb. 9:26). But there is also eschatological reservation, for even though Jesus reigns in heaven, his enemies have not yet been completely vanquished (Heb. 1:13; 10:13). “We do not yet see everything subjected to” Jesus (Heb. 2:8), even though he is now “crowned with glory and honor” (Heb. 2:8–9). We still await the coming new world that will be under Jesus’s authority (Heb. 2:5). Hebrews clarifies that the rule promised to human beings is fulfilled in and through Jesus. The present heavens will perish and be rolled up like a cloak (Heb. 1:11–12). The created things, the present heavens and earth, will be shaken and removed, and only God’s kingdom will remain (Heb. 12:26–28).

4. See the discussion in Schenk, Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews, 78–111.

The already-but-not-yet theme is also apparent with regard to salvation. On the one hand believers are waiting for Jesus to come again when he will bring salvation (Heb. 9:28) and they will “inherit” the salvation promised (Heb. 1:14; 9:15). The fullness of the promise has not yet become reality, but it will be realized when Jesus comes again (Heb. 10:36–37). On the other hand salvation is also the present possession of believers (Heb. 2:3; 5:9; 6:9–10). When we consider the temporal dimension of salvation, we find a both-and instead of an either-or. Believers are saved and will be saved. Both are true, and neither truth should be denied or neglected.

Similarly, believers are now “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all” (Heb. 10:10). They have been “sanctified” through “the blood of the covenant” (Heb. 10:29; cf. 10:14), and thus sanctification is an already accomplished reality; it has been definitively accomplished through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But there is also eschatological reservation, a recognition that believers are not yet completely sanctified. They should “pursue . . . holiness,” for apart from it they will not “see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). If sanctification were complete in every sense, there would be no need to pursue holiness. The urgent exhortation to holiness demonstrates that believers are not yet all they should be. Believers are already truly sanctified and set apart through Jesus Christ, and yet they await the fullness of their sanctification, the completion of holiness that God intends for his people to enjoy. The same kinds of things could be said about perfection. Believers are “perfected” (τετελείωκεν) now and forever by the once-for-all offering of Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:14). One would think from such a statement that no further work was needed, yet the author also exhorts the readers to go on to perfection (τελειότητα, Heb. 6:1), indicating that perfection is not yet theirs in its entirety.

The provisional nature of the deliverance enjoyed by believers is evident in other ways in the letter. For instance, believers are “waiting” for the kingdom to come in all its fullness. The interval between the already and not yet is evident, for believers in Jesus Christ suffer (Heb. 10:32–34) and experience discipline (Heb. 12:4–11). Distress and affliction will not be the portion of believers when the kingdom is consummated. Another way to put it is that believers are freed from bondage to death and “the fear of death” now (Heb. 2:14–15), and yet they are not spared physical death itself. They must die before enjoying new life in its fullness.

The eschatological tension in Hebrews is also communicated by the warning passages (Heb. 2:1–4; 3:12–4:13; 5:11–6:8; 10:26–31; 12:25–29). The readers are admonished about the terrible consequences of falling away. If they turn away from Jesus Christ, there is no hope for them. Such admonitions are given to those who are “brothers” (Heb. 3:12), to those who have been “enlightened” and have received the Holy Spirit (Heb. 6:4–6). The Spirit, as the OT teaches, is an eschatological gift (Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 36:26–27; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28). Since the Hebrews had received the Spirit, they are members of the new age, participants in the new covenant (Jer. 31:31–34). According to Jeremiah 31, beneficiaries of the new covenant have God’s law implanted in them. But if that is the case, why the need for warnings? Certainly residents of the heavenly city won’t need warnings. It seems here that we have another example of eschatological tension. The readers are members of the new covenant, the law is written on their hearts, and they are truly partakers of the Holy Spirit. And yet they need warnings to stimulate them to persevere until the end. The warnings are not inconsequential or insignificant. Even though the readers have already received eschatological promises, they must heed the warnings to obtain eschatological promises.

The call to faith is also a recognition of the “not yet” (Heb. 10:39–11:40). Believers must continue to believe, as chapter 11 clarifies, to receive the promise, just as their ancestors believed in what God pledged to them. If the promise were visible (cf. Heb. 11:3) and the reward were given now (Heb. 11:6), faith in God’s future promises would be superfluous. Faith places its confidence in what God will do in the future. Faith recognizes, then, that God hasn’t yet given everything he promised, and it reaches out to the future, believing that God will make good on everything he has said.

The rest promised in Hebrews is clearly eschatological (Heb. 3:7–4:11). Believers must enter God’s rest, and yet at the same time it seems that 4:3 teaches that those who believe have entered God’s rest even now.^[5] The word “today” (Heb. 4:7) may also suggest that the rest can be entered now. Still the rest is fundamentally an end-time reality (Heb. 4:11). Believers are still exiles and sojourners (Heb. 11:13), and in that respect they are like the wilderness generation (cf. Heb. 3:12–19), which was “on the way” to receive God’s promise.

5. See the commentary on 4:3 for further discussion.

Even if the rest is wholly future, which is the view of many scholars, believers enjoy many other present blessings, for they are members of God’s people and enjoy his presence during their earthly sojournings (Heb. 7:19). Associated with the notion of rest is the promise of the city to come (Heb. 11:10). God has prepared a heavenly city for his own (Heb. 11:16). Presently believers are members of the city of man, which will not endure (Heb. 12:27). At the same time they are distinct from the people of this world, for they seek the city of God, which is “to come” (Heb. 13:14). The notion of the heavenly city is eschatological, but there is also a suggestion that believers have now “come” to the heavenly Jerusalem, that they are members even now of a great heavenly assembly (Heb. 12:22–23). Even though believers await the heavenly city in all its fullness and beauty, they are also currently members of it.

Typology

Typology exists when there is a historical correspondence between events, institutions, and persons found in the OT and the NT.^[6] I argue that typology does not merely represent correspondence but a correspondence intended by God.^[7] In other words, there is a prophetic character to biblical typology. It is not merely retrospective but prospective. It is not merely the case that the author of Hebrews detects patterns and correspondences as he reflects on OT revelation. Since God is sovereign over all of history (e.g., Isa. 46:9–11), he plans the end from the beginning. Hence, the events, institutions, and persons in which there is a typological relationship are not merely accidents of history, nor are they simply employed by God as helpful illustrations. On the contrary, the persons, events, and institutions were intended from the beginning as anticipations of what was to come.

6. In defense of the notion that Hebrews is characterized by allegory, see Stefan Nordgaard Svendsen, Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews, WUNT 2/269 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). I suggest that the structure is better described as typological since there is a historical rootedness in the patterns discerned by the author. The author of Hebrews sees persons like Melchizedek and Aaron as historical, so too the tabernacle and sacrifices are anchored in the historical practices of Israel. Israel’s failure to enter the land of promise was also a historical event that speaks typologically to later readers. Even if some modern historical-critical readers don’t think such persons, events, or institutions are historical, it is certainly the case that the author of Hebrews believed they were.

7. For a recent discussion of typology, see Benjamin J. Ribbens, “A Typology of Types: Typology in Dialogue,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 5 (2011): 81–96.

Ribbens divides typology into three categories: christological, tropological, and homological. For the purpose of this discussion, I am limiting typology here to the category identified as christological in Ribbens. For further discussion on the matter, see also, Richard Ounsworth, Joshua Typology in the New Testament, WUNT 2/328 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 19–54.

Another element of biblical typology, clearly present in Hebrews, should be mentioned at the outset. Biblical typology is characterized by escalation. This means the fulfillment is always greater than the type. Indeed, this element of typology is absolutely crucial for Hebrews, for it is inconceivable that the readers would turn back to the type now that what God promised has become a reality, for the fulfillment is far superior to the type. We see, then, that escalation in typology fits with the main purpose of the letter: how can the readers turn away from Jesus Christ when his person and work are far superior to what was adumbrated in OT persons and institutions? Hebrews, then, reads the OT (rightly so), as forward looking. The OT itself points to a better priest, a better king, a better covenant, a better land, and better promises. Hence, the notion of escalation is not arbitrary or foisted upon the text but is intrinsic to the OT witness.

Typology in Hebrews centers on Jesus Christ. We see from the inception of the letter that ultimately all the types in the OT point to and climax in him. God spoke in various ways to the prophets, but the prophets direct us to and anticipate one greater than themselves (Heb. 1:1–2). Finally and supremely God has spoken in his Son. He is the greatest and final prophet. The author picks up this theme relative to Moses (Heb. 3:1–6), for Moses is conceived of as the greatest prophet in the OT. Moses’s greatness isn’t attributed to his abilities but to his relationship with God, to his dependence on God for strength, and thus he is described as humbler than anyone else on earth (Num. 12:3). Moses’s humility manifests itself in his response to criticism, for he did not take umbrage when censured by Aaron and Miriam (Num. 12:1–2).

The greatness of Moses as a prophet is emphasized in OT revelation. Moses is esteemed as “faithful” and as God’s “servant” (Num. 12:7–8). Therefore, God spoke to him “directly” and “openly” (Num. 12:8). Indeed, the Lord “knew” him “face to face” (Deut. 34:10). Despite the clarity of revelation given through Moses, Jesus is greater than he was, for Jesus like Moses was “faithful,” but Jesus was faithful as “Son” (Heb. 3:2, 6). Jesus was a greater prophet than Moses, for he was not merely a servant or merely a prophet. He was God’s Son.

The title “Son” plays a major role in Hebrews relative to Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:2, 5, 8; 3:6; 4:14; 5:5, 8; 6:6; 7:3, 28; 10:29), but the term is also used typologically. In the OT Israel was identified as God’s son and firstborn (Exod. 4:22; Jer. 31:9), showing Israel’s special relationship with God. As the OT story progressed, the Davidic king is appointed to be God’s son and the firstborn (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 89:27). The promises given to Israel would become a reality through the covenant enacted with David. As God’s son and firstborn, the Lord would rule the world through Israel and the Davidic king (cf. Heb. 1:5).

As the OT story progresses, we see that Israel as God’s son was sent into exile since they failed to keep the stipulations of the covenant. The Davidic kings followed the same course, or perhaps it is better to say, given the message of 1–2 Kings, that the kings led the nation down the same path. They were appointed as kings to lead the nation in righteousness and justice and truth, but the kings forsook the Lord and failed to obey the instructions of the Lord. God’s promise to bless the world through Abraham, therefore, did not become reality through the rule of the kings.

Hebrews, along with the rest of the NT, sets forth Jesus as the true Israel and the true Davidic king. He was the Son who invariably obeyed, never transgressing the will of the Lord (Heb. 4:15; 7:26). The Lord promised Israel that his promises to them would be secured through obedience (Gen. 18:18–19; cf. Gen. 26:5), and Jesus as God’s Son learned to obey in his suffering (Heb. 5:8). His suffering did not propel him away from God but actually drew him closer to God. Israel was tested in the wilderness and sinned repeatedly, but when Jesus was tested, he didn’t fall prey to sin (Heb. 2:18; 4:15), and thus he was perfected via his sufferings (Heb. 2:10). We see escalation in that Jesus was always the obedient Son in contrast to Israel and the Davidic kings. But there is also escalation in another sense, for Jesus is not only a human son but also the divine Son. He is not only the heir like the Davidic king but also the agent by whom the universe was created (Heb. 1:2) and is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of His nature” (Heb. 1:3). Here is a Son who is worshiped (Heb. 1:6) and is identified as God (Heb. 1:8), showing that the Son shares in the divine identity.

The use of Psalm 45 in 1:8–9 is most interesting, for the psalm is originally a royal psalm about the Davidic king. It is a wedding song celebrating the king’s majesty and greatness. When the king is identified as “God” in the psalm (Ps. 45:6), we have an example of hyperbole. The king (cf. Exod. 7:1) is identified as God in the psalm given his stature and rule. As God’s vice-regent he is called “God,” but no one in Israel interpreted the wording literally as if the Davidic king were actually divine. But what is said about the Davidic king was no accident, for it pointed forward in a deeper and truer sense to Jesus Christ. For this one truly is the Son of God, the one whom angels worship and who created the universe (Heb. 1:2, 6, 10, 12). We see a prime example of escalation in typology here.

The Son typology is exploited in still another direction. In 2:5–8 the author cites Psalm 8, which is a creation psalm celebrating the dignity of human beings. Even though human beings seem to be small in the world, God made them to rule the world as his vice-regents (cf. Gen. 1:26–27; 2:15). Psalm 8 celebrates the majesty of God and the dignity of human beings created in his image. Hebrews, however, reads the psalm eschatologically and typologically. The author recognizes that human beings didn’t realize their potential. Human beings didn’t rule the world for God. Instead they sinned against the Lord, plunging the world into chaos so that death reigned instead of life and joy (Heb. 2:5–18). Death and sin prevented human beings from reaching their intended goal (Heb. 2:14–15, 17).

The creation of human beings anticipates and points to the one human being (Jesus Christ) who was faithful to God, the one who succeeded where everyone else failed. Because of his obedience, the world will be subjected to him (Heb. 2:5), even though that reality has not yet been realized (Heb. 2:8). The original plan that human beings would rule the world for God is realized in Jesus Christ. Jesus functions as the representative human being, helping those who can’t help themselves (Heb. 2:18). His help consists supremely in his priestly work of offering himself as a sacrifice on the cross, by which he atoned for the sins committed against God (Heb. 2:17). Jesus’s victory over sin and death is shared with all who are his “brothers” (Heb. 2:11–12), with “the children God gave” him (Heb. 2:13), with “Abraham’s offspring” (Heb. 2:16). Human beings can’t rule over the world if death triumphs over them, but Jesus conquered death for their sake.

The Melchizedekian priesthood of Jesus is also typological.^[8] Melchizedek was not a preincarnate appearance of the Son of God, for Heb. 7:3 says that Melchizedek was made like the Son of God. The wording here suggests that Jesus Christ as high priest was the goal and model of the priesthood from the beginning, and hence Melchizedek was always intended to point forward to him. This supports the claim made earlier that typology does not just happen to seize upon correspondences between persons, events, and institutions. Typology is prospective, reflecting God’s sovereign plan for all of history.

8. Against Cockerill, who limits typology to the Aaronic priesthood (Hebrews, 54). I would suggest that the author’s typology is rather fluid so that he can argue that both the Aaronic and the Melchizedekian priesthood are typological.

Melchizedek’s role as both a priest and a king (Heb. 7:1) anticipates Jesus Christ who is both a priest after Melchizedek’s order and the Davidic king.^[9] The combination of the priestly and kingly offices is anticipated in Psalm 110, which identifies David’s son as his lord but also as a Melchizedekian priest who will serve forever (Ps. 110:1, 4). Hebrews, then, picks up on what the OT itself develops. The phrases “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” assigned to Melchizedek (Heb. 7:2) also apply to Jesus, for ultimately he grants righteousness and peace to his people as their king and priest. When the text says that Melchizedek did not have a mother or father or genealogy, having no beginning or no end (Heb. 7:3), we must beware of overinterpretation. The author isn’t asserting that Melchizedek literally didn’t have a father or mother, nor is he claiming that he wasn’t born or that he didn’t die. If Melchizedek didn’t have a father or mother, he wouldn’t even be a human being! Melchizedek is contrasted with Levitical priests here, for the genealogy of the latter is carefully traced; and if genealogical connections can’t be proven, they can’t serve as priests (Neh. 7:64). It is remarkable, then, that Melchizedek served as a priest, though Genesis says nothing about his genealogy. The “silence” about Melchizedek’s ancestry and birth and death is significant typologically, for it demonstrates that his priesthood is of a different character than the Aaronic priesthood. Certainly the language used here is not literally true of Jesus at every point, for he did have a mother.

9. In defense of reading the reference to Melchizedek typologically, see Dale F. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some Core Citations from the Psalms, NABPRDS 10 (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1994), 228–41.

The author contends that the Melchizedekian priesthood is superior to the Levitical, and thereby he establishes typologically that Jesus’s priesthood is greater as well. Jesus cannot be a Levitical priest since he hails from the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:13–14). We see from Psalm 110 that the Melchizedekian priesthood is fulfilled in the Davidic king, so that the priesthood finds its ultimate fulfillment in the kingly office. Melchizedek’s priesthood, according to Ps. 110:4, remains “forever” (Heb. 7:17). Certainly this wasn’t literally true of Melchizedek, for he was dead and gone after his life ended. We see typological escalation here, for the word “forever” is literally true in Jesus’s case, for he has “an indestructible life” (Heb. 7:16). Jesus’s priesthood never ends since he conquered death forever at his resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus is foundational to the superiority of his priesthood since the tenure of Levitical priests ends at death, whereas Jesus is a permanent and effective priest since he “remains forever” (Heb. 7:24–25).

The author doesn’t feel restricted or bound in considering the typological significance of Jesus. There is a sense in which the Levitical priests are types of Jesus as well (Heb. 8:1–5). We see from 5:1–10 that the Levitical priesthood is the typological framework that anticipates Jesus’s priesthood. Jesus, like the Levitical priests, was a human being appointed by God to his office. What is also emphasized, however, is the discontinuity between the two, for Jesus is a priest in the heavenly sanctuary, the true sanctuary, whereas the Levitical priests are restricted to an earthly ministry. The earthly priests are “a copy and shadow of the heavenly things” (Heb. 8:5). Moses himself signaled that the tabernacle pointed to a greater and more perfect tabernacle, for God instructed him to “make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain” (Heb. 8:5; Exod. 25:40; cf. 25:9; 26:30; 27:8). The earthly priests point forward to a better priest, a heavenly one. Earthly priests stand because their work is never finished (Heb. 10:11), but Christ sits because his sacrifice does not need to be repeated (Heb. 10:12–14), for final forgiveness has been accomplished.

The author picks up on the typological significance of the tabernacle and its sacrifices in 9:1–10. The regulations for sacrifices are instructive, for the high priest was permitted to enter the most holy place only once a year on the Day of Atonement (Heb. 9:7; Leviticus 16). The Spirit was revealing that the free access to God was lacking (Heb. 9:8). Jesus’s sacrifice was superior, for he did not enter an earthly tabernacle but a heavenly one, securing access to God’s presence continually and forever (Heb. 9:11–12). The animal sacrifices were a type of Jesus’s greater sacrifice, and we clearly have an example of escalation since Jesus’s sacrifice tore open the curtain in the temple/ tabernacle separating human beings from God so that believers have constant access to God’s presence (Heb. 10:19–20).

The physical washings and sacrifices of the OT (Heb. 9:10, 13) anticipate a greater washing and cleansing, one that is effectual. The external washings, after all, only cleanse the body (Heb. 9:13), but Jesus’s blood sprinkles the conscience clean of sin and washes the body with water so that the whole person is truly cleansed (Heb. 9:14; 10:22). There is also a typological relationship in terms of covenantal practice. The old covenant was ratified by the blood of animals, signifying that forgiveness only comes with the spilling of blood, with the death of sacrificial victims (Heb. 9:15–22). The typological connection is clear. The blood of animal sacrifices points forward to a greater and more effective sacrifice, to the blood of Jesus, which is a “better” sacrifice (Heb. 9:23–24) since it brings access to God. Jesus’s once-for-all sacrifice secured forgiveness of sins forever (Heb. 9:25–28).

The law and the sacrifices therein are “shadows” pointing to a greater reality (Heb. 10:1), to a greater sacrifice. Animal sacrifices direct us to the sacrifice of Christ (Heb. 10:2–10), for it is obvious that the blood of animals can’t atone for sin. True atonement can only be secured by a human being, not by brute animals who are offered unwillingly and without any consciousness of what is going on. Christ, on the other hand, gave himself personally and gladly for the sake of his people. Animal sacrifices simply remind people of their sins year after year. The sacrifice of Christ, on the other hand, sanctifies once for all (Heb. 10:10). What is offered at Jesus’s altar (the cross) is better than the food of OT sacrifices (Heb. 13:9–10), for the former brings grace while the latter is an external practice that points forward to a better sacrifice and a better altar.

The author suggests a correspondence with the life of Christ in a few other texts. For instance, the sacrifice of Christ is compared to the slaying of Abel (Heb. 12:24). Both died as innocent victims, but Christ’s blood speaks better than Abel’s, for Christ washes clean those who trust in him. Abel’s blood cries out for justice, but Christ’s blood does something far more wonderful and startling. Through his death human beings can boldly enter God’s presence. Similarly, the sacrifice of Isaac anticipated Christ’s resurrection typologically (παραβολῇ, Heb. 11:17–19), for Abraham was convinced that God would raise Isaac from the dead if he sacrificed him (Gen. 22:4), but Jesus, in contrast to Isaac, was truly raised from the dead, fulfilling what was adumbrated in the “sacrifice” of Isaac.

Typology also plays an important role in the letter’s warning passages. We see again here the prospective nature of typology and escalation. For instance, under the old covenant those who transgressed covenant stipulations received a “just punishment” on earth (Heb. 2:2). The punishment could be death for sins like adultery or homosexuality (Lev. 20:10, 13) or covenant curses for departing from the Lord (Deut. 28:15–68). They were banished and sent into exile for their failure to abide by the covenant. Such earthly punishments, however, anticipated the final judgment that would be experienced by those who drifted away from the salvation given by the Lord (Heb. 2:3). In this case the punishment is escalated, for the readers are threatened with the eschatological wrath of God.

The same pattern of argumentation surfaces in 10:26–31. Those who violate the Mosaic law die without mercy. Such an earthly punishment forecasts a future and greater punishment if one tramples God’s Son under his feet, considers the blood of the covenant unclean, and insults the Holy Spirit. The judgment in this case is more terrifying than physical death, for those who reject the Son will “fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31). The warning in 12:25–29 runs along similar lines. Israel didn’t escape judgment when God warned them on earth, and so it is even more the case that those who ignore a heavenly word will not be spared God’s judgment.

We see the same paradigm in 3:7–4:13. The wilderness generation didn’t obtain rest in Canaan because they refused to obey the Lord’s will (Heb. 3:11, 18; 4:3). The unbelief and disobedience of the wilderness generation function as an example to avoid for believers in Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:12, 15, 18–19; 4:2–3). Parenthetically, but along the same lines, Esau also functions as a type in the same way as the wilderness generation. Esau surrendered an earthly birthright, but believers are admonished not to throw away their eternal birthright for temporal joys (Heb. 12:16–17). When we consider the wilderness generation, the rest promised in Canaan was an earthly rest, but there is a better rest, a heavenly rest available for believers in Jesus Christ (Heb. 4:1). The rest theme is complex and variegated, for it doesn’t only relate to the promise that Israel would inherit Canaan. The author also hearkens back to creation, where “God rested from all His works” on the seventh day (Heb. 4:4; Gen. 2:3). God’s rest on the seventh day, when he completed his creation work, has an anticipatory element to it. God rested because his work was completed, and hence his Sabbath rest points to and anticipates the new creation to come. When God’s kingdom is realized in its fullness, those who belong to God will enjoy Sabbath rest in its fullness, for then human beings will cease from their labor and work (Heb. 4:10). The rest God enjoyed upon completing his work at creation anticipates the rest which will come when the new creation dawns.

The author pulls on another thread regarding the rest. The wilderness generation didn’t find rest, but under Joshua the people obtained the rest promised in Canaan (Josh. 22:4). God’s promises regarding rest were fulfilled under Joshua (Josh. 21:44–45; cf. Josh. 23:1). The author notes, however, that the rest Joshua gave to the people could hardly be ultimate (Heb. 4:8). At the end of the day, the rest in Joshua is provisional, temporal, and earthly. Otherwise, the rest referred to in Psalm 95 would be extraneous (Ps. 95:11). It would be pointless to offer rest at a later period under David if earthy rest was already secured under Joshua. It follows, then, that the rest under Joshua is a type of a better rest to come, which is identified as “a Sabbath rest” (Heb. 4:9).^[10] Indeed, the name “Joshua” (Ἰησοῦς) here is actually the name “Jesus.” Jesus is a new and better Joshua, and the writing of Psalm 95 after the days of Joshua signifies that a new and better rest is coming, a rest that is given by Jesus the Christ, a rest that can never be disturbed by anyone. The author argues typologically, therefore, from God’s Sabbath rest and Israel’s rest (or lack thereof) in Canaan, seeing a future rest for those who believe and obey, and a future judgment for those who fall away. We have escalation in both instances: the future judgment and future rest are eternal.

10. Some argue that the author doesn’t argue typologically since he doesn’t have any interest in the land, but such a judgment is overstated. For the typological nature of the author’s conception of land, see David M. Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Representation, WUNT 2/238 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 143–55.

The typology of a future homeland is picked up elsewhere in the letter. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were promised the land of Canaan (Heb. 11:8). Canaan becomes a type of a heavenly homeland, a heavenly city that will be granted to believers (Heb. 11:10, 13–16). Believers are exiles and resident aliens here, but the city to come is far better than any earthly city, for it is an enduring city (Heb. 12:22; 13:14).

This brief foray into typology demonstrates that typology plays a significant role in Hebrews. The author often sees a typological connection between the OT and the NT, and he regularly sees an escalation between the type and its fulfillment.

The Spatial Orientation of Hebrews

Some scholars place the spatial orientation of Hebrews under the subject of typology or eschatology.^[11] Creating a distinct section is useful, however, since typology is characteristic of many of the books in the NT, whereas the author’s spatial emphasis is distinctive. Hebrews quite frequently contrasts the earthly and the heavenly, so we have a vertical or spatial contrast. Hence, the author, in accord with the OT, “works with a two-story model of the created cosmos—heaven/s and earth” (cf. Gen. 1:1; 2:1; Jer. 10:11).^[12] It also seems that the author distinguishes between the sky, the visible heavens, and heaven as God’s dwelling place.^[13] Such a distinction is borne out since Jesus “passed through the heavens” (Heb. 4:14), is “exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26), and has entered “heaven itself” (Heb. 9:24). The last phrase refers to the presence of God. The nature of the heavens here can’t be described adequately, for God’s dwelling place is mysterious and beyond human access. We need to acknowledge here the symbolic character of the language found in Hebrews. Discerning where the language is symbolic is, of course, difficult. For instance, Christ truly has a resurrection body; the author doesn’t engage in symbolism here. The language about a heavenly tent (Heb. 8:2; 9:11, 24) and a city, however, should not be pressed to say there is a literal tent or a literal heavenly city.^[14] Spatial imagery may be appropriated to express the inexpressible, to convey a reality that transcends our understanding in symbolic language. Hence, the reference to God’s throne in the heavens points the readers to God’s transcendence (Heb. 1:3; 8:1–2; 10:12; 12:2).^[15]

11. Steyn says we have both a spatial and a linear eschatology in Hebrews. See Gert J. Steyn, “The Eschatology of Hebrews: As Understood Within a Cultic Setting,” in Eschatology of the New Testament and Some Related Documents, ed. J. G. van der Watt, WUNT 2/315 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 429–31.

12. Edward Adams, “Cosmology in Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. R. Bauckham, D. R. Driver, T. A. Hart, and N. MacDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 130. Paul Ellingworth maintains that angels belong to an intermediate sphere, but it seems more accurate to say that angels belong to the highest sphere where God dwells in heaven (“Jesus and the Universe in Hebrews,” EvQ 58 [1986]: 349). But such a perspective doesn’t mean angels aren’t also active on earth (so Adams, “Cosmology in Hebrews,” 131–32).

13. I am following Adams closely here (“Cosmology of Hebrews,” 131), though I am not claiming he would agree with all the steps I make.

14. I will argue further for this view in the commentary proper.

15. Steyn, “The Eschatology of Hebrews,” 437.

Some in the history of interpretation have interpreted the writer’s contrast between the earthly and heavenly sanctuary in Platonic terms, for what is heavenly is superior to what is earthly.^[16] The notion sounds Platonic at first glance, as if the earthly is a pale replica of the perfect archetype which is in heaven. Furthermore, what. the author says could be understood as critical of the physical creation, as if the author longs for a transcendent world undefiled by material reality.^[17] Certainly the language is reminiscent of what we find in Plato or Philo.^[18] Still the worldview is dramatically different, and most scholars now agree that the writer was not appropriating Platonic notions in any technical sense, and hence he is ultimately world affirming instead of world denying. Most significantly, the language of heaven and earth is plotted on an eschatological time line. The eschatological and spatial are complementary, and we have no such conception in Plato.

According to the author, the heavenly realm is superior to the earthly.^[19] Jesus’s priesthood, in contrast to the Levitical priesthood, is heavenly (Heb. 8:4), and therefore Jesus’s priesthood is infinitely more valuable than the ministry conducted by the Levitical priests. Similarly, the message conveyed from heaven, from Mount Zion, represents God’s final and definitive word (Heb. 1:2; 12:25). The author doesn’t reject the word given through Moses and the prophets, but the heavenly message is the consummation and completion and fulfillment of what God has revealed. Hence, those who reject such a heavenly message will face severe judgment if they renounce the word proclaimed to them.

Believers have a “heavenly calling” (Heb. 3:1), and Jesus has “passed through the heavens” (Heb. 4:14), entering God’s presence as high priest. The earthly tabernacle established by Moses is contrasted with “the true tabernacle,” which is in heaven (Heb. 8:2). The author is clearly saying that the heavenly is superior to the earthly. Similarly, the earthly priests who offer sacrifices according to the law are contrasted with Jesus, who is a heavenly priest (Heb. 8:3–4). Earthly priests, then, are “a copy and shadow of heavenly things” (Heb. 8:5). Since the earthly reflects the heavenly, when Moses constructed the tabernacle, he did so according to the pattern specified by God (Heb. 8:5; Exod. 25:40). The earthly is again inferior, but the argument isn’t that it is inferior because it comes from the material world. Its inferiority is linked to eschatology, for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood is tied to the inauguration of the new covenant in his ministry (Heb. 8:7–13). The earthly tabernacle points above to “a greater and more perfect tabernacle” in heaven (Heb. 9:11), a tabernacle that is “not of this creation.” The author isn’t claiming that there is a literal tabernacle or place in heaven.^[20] He simply uses the language of tabernacle to communicate the truth that the earthly tabernacle symbolizes God’s presence in heaven. Jesus’s sacrifice is better than animal sacrifices, for he entered the presence of God and cleansed the conscience of sin (Heb. 9:12–14).

16. On the cosmology of Hebrews, see Jon Laansma, “The Cosmology of Hebrews,” in Cosmology and New Testament Theology, ed. J. T. Pennington and S. M. McDonough, LNTS 355 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 125–43; idem, “Hidden Stories in Hebrews: Cosmology and Theology,” in Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Contexts, ed. R. Bauckham, D. Driver, T. Hart, and N. MacDonald, LNTS 387 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 9–18; Adams, “Cosmology in Hebrews,” 122–39.

17. Adams argues that Plato himself actually valued the physical cosmos, and hence the polarity is not apt; but he goes on to show how Hebrews claims in a number of places that God created the world, showing that the world of creation is good and not inferior (“Cosmology in Hebrews,” 123–30).

18. See the careful and restrained conclusions of Adams (“Cosmology of Hebrews,” 132–33). Adams points out that the term “copy” (ὑπόδειγμα, 8:5) is not used by Plato, nor is it evident that the term “model” or “copy” (NRSV) (ἀντίτυπος) was Platonic. Plato does use the term “shadow” (σκιά, 10:1), but, given the author’s eschatology, it is unclear that Hebrews uses it in a Platonic sense.

19. See again, Adams, “Cosmology of Hebrews,” 133–34.

20. Against William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1991), 237–38; Barnard, The Mysticism of Hebrews, 104–9.

The “copies” (ὑποδείγματα, Heb. 9:23) of what is in heaven were purified with the sacrifices of animals. But “the heavenly things” (ἐπουράνια) needed “better sacrifices” (Heb. 9:23). The blood of animals could not avail in heaven, in the presence of God. Since the earthly sanctuary is a “model of the true one” (ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν), Jesus could not content himself with entering such a sanctuary (Heb. 9:24). He entered a better sanctuary, a heavenly one, to “appear in the presence of God for us” (Heb. 9:24). The law on earth is “a shadow” (Σκιάν) of the heavenly world, which is the “actual form” (εἰκόνα) of things (Heb. 10:1). Similarly, Mount Sinai was terrifying when God came down on it, rocking with thunder and blazing with lightning so that those present were awe stricken (Heb. 12:18–21). But believers have come to a better mountain: Mount Zion (Heb. 12:22), a heavenly mountain where the “living God” resides. Indeed, it is nothing other than “the heavenly Jerusalem.” It follows, then, that no one will escape if they turn away from a message given from heaven (Heb. 12:25), for even those who rejected the message from Sinai received an earthly punishment.

God will shake the created world so that created things are removed (Heb. 12:26–27) and only the kingdom remains (Heb. 12:28). Hence, the author departs from Plato, for in contrast to the latter he does not believe this world is eternal.^[21] The author underscores the transience and impermanence of the present world by citing Ps. 102:25–27 (Heb. 1:10–12). But Edward Adams rightly remarks that the temporary character of the world does not mean the author of Hebrews believes the physical world is intrinsically evil.^[22]

Scholars debate whether the writer of Hebrews believes in a new creation or thinks the heavenly realm is nonmaterial. Adams rightly argues it is more convincing to say the author looks forward to a new creation.^[23] As Jon Laansma says, “Creation has not been removed but rather cleansed (Heb. 1:3) and reconstituted as God’s temple, city, fatherland, world, and kingdom.”^[24] The Son will be heir of all things (Heb. 1:2), “which implies that in the eschaton there will be a cosmos . . . for him to inherit.”^[25] Furthermore, in Heb. 2:6–8 the author cites Ps. 8:4–6 when he predicts that Jesus will fulfill the destiny for human beings recorded in the psalm. But this destiny, according to Psalm 8, involves rule over the world, indicating that Jesus will rule over a physical cosmos. Indeed, Jesus will reign over the “coming world” (Heb. 2:5; cf. Heb. 1:6).^[26] The term “world” (οἰκουμένη) here designates “inhabited earth,”^[27] signifying that the coming city (Heb. 13:14; cf. Heb. 12:22) designates a renewed cosmos (cf. Heb. 6:5). Such a view fits with Revelation 21–22, where the heavenly city also describes a new creation.

Believers should follow the example of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and look forward to a heavenly city instead of longing to fit into the present social order (Heb. 11:13–16).^[28] They should recognize that they are exiles and resident aliens in the present world. This present earth is not their home. They long for the city that is coming (Heb. 13:14). This world is not rejected as inherently evil, for this is the place where Christ came to save his people (Heb. 10:5–10). He is the incarnate Son (Heb. 2:10–18) who suffered for the sake of his people, and he will return to earth to complete his saving work (Heb. 9:28).

21. Adams, “Cosmology of Hebrews,” 136.

22. Ibid., 135–36.

23. Ibid., 137–38; cf. also Laansma “Hidden Stories in Hebrews,” 12–18.

24. Ibid., 14.

25. Adams, “Cosmology of Hebrews,” 137.

26. I am not suggesting that 2:6–9 restricts the rule to Jesus, for his brothers and sisters will rule with him and because of him.

27. So Adams, “Cosmology of Hebrews,” 137.

28. Cf. ibid., 134. Adams contests the idea that the author uses Platonic conceptions here.

Hebrews Outline

1. Prologue: Definitive and Final Revelation in the Son (Heb. 1:1–4)
2. Don’t Abandon the Son Since He Is Greater than Angels (Heb. 1:5–2:18)
   1. The Son’s Nature and Reign Show He Is Greater than Angels (Heb. 1:5–14)
   2. Warning: Don’t Drift Away (Heb. 2:1–4)
   3. The Coming World Subjected to the Son (Heb. 2:5–18)
      1. The Son of Man Exalted over Angels by Virtue of His Death (Heb. 2:5–9)
      2. Jesus as the Merciful and Faithful High Priest Shares His Rule with His Brothers and Sisters (Heb. 2:10–18)
3. Don’t Harden Your Hearts Since You Have a Son and High Priest Greater than Moses and Joshua (Heb. 3:1–4:13)
   1. The Faithful Son Greater than the Servant Moses (Heb. 3:1–6)
   2. Warning: Continue Believing and Obeying to Enter Rest (Heb. 3:7–4:13)
      1. The OT Text: Don’t Harden Your Hearts as the Wilderness Generation Did (Heb. 3:7–11)
      2. Application of OT: Beware of Unbelief and Disobedience (Heb. 3:12–19)
      3. Fear Lest You Don’t Enter His Rest (Heb. 4:1–5)
      4. Be Diligent to Enter His Rest While It Remains (Heb. 4:6–13)
4. Don’t Fall Away from Jesus’s Melchizedekian Priesthood Since It Is Greater than the Levitical Priesthood (Heb. 4:14–10:18)
   1. Exhortation in Light of Jesus’s Priestly Status (Heb. 4:14–5:10)
      1. Hold Fast Confession and Draw Near Since Jesus Is Son and High Priest (Heb. 4:14–16)
      2. Jesus Appointed by God as Perfect High Priest (Heb. 5:1–10)
   2. Warning and Assurance (Heb. 5:11–6:20)
      1. Warning Against Falling Away from Jesus the High Priest (Heb. 5:11–6:8)
         1. High Priesthood Hard to Explain Because of Readers’ Sluggishness (Heb. 5:11–14)
         2. Call to Maturity (Heb. 6:1–3)
         3. Those Who Fall Away Can’t Be Renewed to Repentance (Heb. 6:4–8)
      2. Assurance and Comfort (Heb. 6:9–20)
         1. Confident that Readers Will Be Diligent and Inherit the Promises (Heb. 6:9–12)
         2. Assurance and Hope Through God’s Oath (Heb. 6:13–20)
   3. Jesus’s Greater Priesthood as a Melchizedekian Priest (Heb. 7:1–28)
      1. Melchizedek Greater than Levi (Heb. 7:1–10)
      2. Arguments for a Changed Priesthood (Heb. 7:11–28)
         1. Imperfection of Levitical Priesthood (Heb. 7:11–12)
         2. Jesus from Tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:13–14)
         3. Prophecy of Melchizedekian Priesthood (Heb. 7:15–17)
         4. Setting Aside of Levitical Priesthood (Heb. 7:18–19)
         5. Oath Accompanies Melchizedekian Priesthood (Heb. 7:20–22)
         6. Jesus a Permanent Priest (Heb. 7:23–25)
         7. A Sinless Priest and a Once-for-All Sacrifice (Heb. 7:26–28)
   4. New Covenant Better than the Old (Heb. 8:1–13)
      1. Jesus’s Heavenly Priesthood Shows He Is Mediator of a Better Covenant (Heb. 8:1–6)
      2. 2. Prophecy of New Covenant Shows Weakness of Old (Heb. 8:7–13)
   5. A Better Sacrifice Under the New Covenant (Heb. 9:1–10:18)
      1. Free Access to God Not Granted Under Old Covenant (Heb. 9:1–10)
      2. Jesus Entered Heaven Itself with His Blood (Heb. 9:11–14)
      3. Jesus as Mediator of New Covenant Bestows an Eternal Inheritance (Heb. 9:15–22)
      4. Jesus’s Sacrifice: Better than OT Sacrifices (Heb. 9:23–10:18)
         1. Jesus’s Heavenly and Once-for-All Sacrifice (Heb. 9:23–28)
         2. Repetition of OT Sacrifices Shows Their Inadequacy (Heb. 10:1–4)
         3. Jesus’s Once-for-All Sacrifice Canceled Old System (Heb. 10:5–10)
         4. Jesus’s Completed Sacrifice (Heb. 10:11–14)
         5. Final Forgiveness Promised in New Covenant Realized (Heb. 10:15–18)
5. Concluding Exhortations and Warnings (Heb. 10:19–12:29)
   1. Exhortation to Draw Near, Hold Fast, and Help Others (Heb. 10:19–25)
   2. Warning: No Hope of Forgiveness for Those Who Turn from Christ (Heb. 10:26–31)
   3. Call to Persevere in Faith (Heb. 10:32–12:3)
      1. Don’t Abandon Confidence but Endure in Faith (Heb. 10:32–39)
      2. Description and Examples of Persevering Faith (Heb. 11:1–12:3)
         1. Nature of Faith (Heb. 11:1–2)
         2. Creation Through Noah (Heb. 11:3–7)
         3. The Faith of Abraham and His Heirs (Heb. 11:8–22)
         4. The Faith of Moses and Those Entering the Land (Heb. 11:23–31)
         5. A Closing Catalog of Faith (Heb. 11:32–40)
         6. Run the Race Looking to Jesus as Supreme Exemplar of Faith (Heb. 12:1–3)
   4. D. Exhortations to Readers to Endure (Heb. 12:4–29)
      1. Endure Discipline for Holiness (Heb. 12:4–13)
      2. 2. Pursue Peace and Holiness for the Final Blessing (Heb. 12:14–17)
      3. You Have Come to Mount Zion Instead of Mount Sinai (Heb. 12:18–24)
      4. Final Warning: Don’t Refuse the One Speaking (Heb. 12:25–29)
6. Epilogue: Final Exhortations (Heb. 13:1–25)
   1. Practical Expressions of Love in the Church (Heb. 13:1–6)
   2. Remember Your Leaders and Suffer with Jesus Outside the Camp (Heb. 13:7–17)
   3. Final Words (Heb. 13:18–25)

***

Editor’s Note: This essay is excerpted from Hebrews: Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary by Thomas R. Schreiner (Lexham Press, 2021).