I have just finished reading Lamb of the Free – the fourth reading of the book and if I had the energy I would need one more reading that included the footnotes, a Bible in one hand and a pen and paper to make extensive notes. That is not going to happen today and I will probably let the material settle for a while. (I highly recommend this book and a challenging read but a major pushback against ‘substitutionary’ view of the atonement.) What was not new for me is the idea that sacrifice is not something done in my place but in order to cleanse… forgiveness of sins does not require blood / death but cleansing – so Heb. 9:22 “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”; Acts 15:9 “in cleansing their hearts by faith [the Gentiles] he has made no distinction between them and us”. Cleansing, purifying being the effect of both the OT sacrifices and that of the death of Jesus. God not requiring the death of Jesus in order to forgive – indeed (from memory) in Acts we always read that ‘you’ put Jesus to death BUT God raised him from the dead. Anyway enough of the book and my smart observations!
Partly provoked by the book and also my own readings it seems clear that Hebrews focuses on areas regarding the work of Jesus from unique angles. So what took place after the death of Jesus – and death is understood as the presentation of life to God, hence the death of Jesus is the presentation of an indestructible, perfect human life to God. Maybe there are two ‘opposite’ answers – he went to ‘hades’ to proclaim freedom to the captives:
He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison (1 Pet 3:18, 19).
Or the very opposite!
Thus it was necessary for the sketches of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves need better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the holy place year after year with blood that is not his own, for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb 9:23-26).
Moses had to make the tabernacle according to the pattern he saw in heaven – and that needed cleansing (sacrifices) so as it would be a meeting point of heaven and earth. Is there a ‘heavenly’ tabernacle? And why would that need cleansing? I think rather than there being a heavenly tabernacle what Moses was to create was a reflection of heaven itself (we read ‘Jesus entered into heaven itself’)… but that still raises the question as to why heaven needs better sacrifices, and needs to be cleansed! Maybe heaven was left polluted after the fall of Lucifer (not likely to get my vote) or perhaps the sin of humanity affected heaven also (OK a tentative vote from me this time).
If I had to choose between the visit to ‘hades’ or to ‘heaven’ I go for the latter – though of course both might be possible.
And on the going to heaven I think probably what we have is the flip side of cleansing of things merely earthly but to include all of creation (‘heaven and earth’ being a merism for the whole creation).The result being that rather than the separation of the two (dualism) that the path is opened through the cross for the reconciliation of all things – things in heaven and things on earth. Jesus’ death is much more than my sins + your sins placed on Jesus (indeed I don’t see that at all!) – it is the defeat of every power that stands in the way of the divine presence manifesting through all things. Thus the death of Jesus is that of the indestructible human life that overcomes all hostile powers (narrowed to ‘sin and death’ and including ‘principalities and powers’) being presented to the Creator God, thus cleansing the Temple (heaven being the throne and earth the footstool) in totality. Jesus the one who ‘tabernacled’ among us risen and ascended to ‘fill all things’ cleanses all things by his blood (and here we have to think life, death, resurrection and ascension) – hence there can be no more need for a tabernacle / temple (ripped curtain).
Now I guess over to us – what aspect do we fill out, not with domination, but with presence?
Your last sentence ‘presence’ reminds me of a name used among First Nations peoples here in Canada for European settlers. Rolling Heads. Why? Because settlers (a term for those not indigenous) are not attached to the land. And that’s technically true. If you have arrived from somewhere else then you are a displaced person, a person, at least currently, lacking a sense of place. It is a commitment to a territory, bit of land, city, site or community in an area, that builds a sense of place. One has to be present, often for a period of time, to gain a sense of place, to cease to be a rolling head. Colonization coupled with a debased Christianity fostered displacement. Settlers who were displaced then, in the need of being placed, displaced indigenous peoples. All sides are traumatized by a sense of displacement. First Nations here in Canada are working hard to re-place themselves from celebrating their cultures to new forms of land care, stewardship and restoration. Some settlers do the same. Many do not. It is by demonstrating place(ment) through presence that we can enable healing of the planet and those of us who live here. Today I read in the CBC of a First Nations group who are not looking just to restore an ecosystem but instead are seeking to understand ‘well being’ even in a climate changed world. We all need that kind of vision.
Love the connection presence and present and so significant. I am working on (meaning thinking about) how reconciliation seems to me to be ever so central to Scripture – and four ways – with God, with the other (friend and enemy), self and (yes wait for it, Anne) creation. All four being important and your ‘present’ comments I think feed right into all four of the above.
This is a bit sketchy as a response and it is only to your either/or question about what is in need of cleansing. Joel Baden, Prof of Hebrew Bible at Yale, often says that Christian readings of the relevant passages often blur the whole issue. He says there was no sacrifice for personal sin in the Jewish landscape, and that all sin was accrued to the temple and it is this that is cleansed by the enactments of sacrifice. Doesn’t sound like much in my clumsy hands but the point struck me as serious at the time because it is to do with Adonai having a clean home to protect the presence. It came in more than one of the many YT videos that he has done.
Thanks Chris – great source. Perhaps he covers this too but Rillera also goes to ‘sins’ that were not covered within the rituals and that exile being the means of cleansing the land. The ‘cleansing’ aspect is certainly the core (IMHO) of OT sacrifice. Rillera’s take on the Day of Atonement (he calls day of decontamination) is the best I have read – a cleansing from the holy of holies, the inner sanctuary and working its way out – like cleaning a house thoroughly and sweeping the dirt out… carried off by the ‘scapegoat’. On that he counters the ever-so-popular among ‘progressives’ Girard’s scapegoat approach who himself acknowledges that he cannot base his view on the Day of Atonement!
Here’s a brief clip where he covers the points about the sanctuary. I think there might also be a conversation between Joel and Pete Enns that, from distant memory, covers similar points but much more broadly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXJ60MFb02c
Thanks Martin. I’ve not taken much notice of Rillera mostly because I am mostly looking very broadly at how recent scholarship is hinting at new forms of relationship with the text and how this impacts our conception of the responsibility of the church. This, in turn, is part of looking at how aesthetics provides the materials of identity. In this case it might be the way that the aesthetics of the tabernacle so closely mimic the design of the Pharaoh’s battle camp (where else would Bezalel and Oholiab have learned their craft) And asking why a strong participatory aesthetic was key to their embrace of the law.
Joel, as a Jewish scholar, does not seem to go where others often do (McClellan, Stavrakopoulou, Martin, Ehrman et al) but this broad school of thinking does make some interesting points about where the symbolic or metaphoric pairings might apply. For several of these the sanctuary in all its forms is not a metaphor for anything, being the literal domain of the virtually physical deity in its earliest forms. So if a metaphor could be applied it might be in the form of a critique of the Pharaoh but none is particularly keen on this.
For me Joel is particularly significant for his Pentateuch work which seems to be having the effect of rehabilitating documentary hypothesis from its critics. Personally I find that very helpful even if I never swim deeply in its turbulent waters.