The answer, I suspect, lies along the following four lines. First, the covenantal framework helps the author explain the connection between messiah’s heavenly status and the necessity of superior sacri¿ces (cf.
9.15-24). Related, this covenantal framework also helps explain why messiah is in heaven and, thus, absent (cf. 8.3-5):
196the true tent needed to be consecrated so that the new covenant could be inaugurated. Second, the covenantal framework assures the elect that they will receive the bene¿ts secured through messiah’s sacri¿ce (ĞÈÑË, 9.15), which is a point the author hinted at earlier when he connected the oath of Ps. 110.4 with the sure ful¿llment of the new (lit. ‘better’, ÁɼţÌÌÇÅÇË) covenant (7.22). Perhaps this assurance was needed as a result of messiah’s absence, which, as just noted, the covenantal framework also helps to explain. Third, it was probably impossible for the author to talk about a cult, with its priesthood and sacred space, without at once thinking about the covenantal framework it served (see, esp., 9.1, ¼čϼ…÷ ÈÉŪ̾
»ÀÁ¸ÀŪĸ̸ ¸Ìɼţ¸Ë ÌŦ ̼ ׺ÀÇÅ ÁÇÊÄÀÁŦÅ).
197Fourth, as already noted, Jeremiah 31 shows that the Old Testament already recognized the inadequacy of the Mosaic covenant (8.6b-13) and, therefore, of the cult that served it (see, esp., 9.8-10). The author, in other words, wants the audience to see that his argument is, as everywhere else, based on expectations present in the Hebrew Scriptures.
IV. The Self-confessed Inadequacy of the Old Covenant’s Law (10.1-18)
In the ¿nal unit in this section (10.1-18), which is, in fact, the ¿nal piece of the author’s exposition itself, the author makes one last attempt to prove that messiah’s death and the replacement of the Levitical cult were anticipated in the Old Testament.
a. The Logic of Hebrews 10.1-18
The exposition comprises four movements.
198First, the author proves that the Levitical cult—now the law itself—could not provide de¿nitive
196. See, e.g., Koester, Hebrews, p. 428: ‘His absence from view is not an absence of concern, but a part of his role as high priest’.
197. Cf. also 7.11-12. See, e.g., Cockerill, Hebrews, p. 403.
198. The coherence of vv. 1-18 is seen in the inclusio (1) in vv. 1//14 (cf.
̸ėË ¸Ĥ̸ėË ¿ÍÊţ¸ÀË with ÄÀê…ÈÉÇÊÎÇÉê; and ÇĤ»šÈÇ̼ »ŧŸ̸À…̼¼ÀľÊ¸À with ̼̼¼ţÑÁ¼Å ¼ĊË Ìġ »À¾Å¼ÁšË; cf. Guthrie, Structure, p. 87); and (2) in vv. 3//17 (cf.
1
forgiveness. It was, he will argue, never meant to (vv. 1-4). Second, the author explains that the law’s replacement and messiah’s law-ful¿lling/
replacing sacri¿ce were anticipated in Psalm 40 (vv. 5-10). Third, the author shows that both themes were also present in his chief text, Ps. 110.1. And, fourth, the author shows that the new covenant’s promise of full forgiveness required and, thus, anticipated better sacri¿ces.
1. The self-confessed inadequacy of the law: Exodus 25.40 and
experience (10.1-4). In vv. 1-4,199the author shows that the law was not able (ÇĤ»šÈÇ̼ »ŧŸ̸À)
200to perfect since it had (ìÏÑÅ)
201only a shadow
ÒÅŠÄžÊÀË ÖĸÉÌÀľÅ with ÌľÅ ÖĸÉÌÀľÅ…ÇĤ Äü ÄžʿŢÊÇĸÀ ìÌÀ; cf. Koester, Hebrews, p. 436). See also the repetition of ÈÉÇÊÎÇÉŠ in vv. 5, 8, 10, 14, 18; ¿ÍÊţ¸ in vv. 1, 5, 8, 11, 12 and, esp., ÖĸÉÌţ¸ in vv. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18. On which, see Koester, Hebrews, p. 436. For the division of the unit into four subunits, see Westcott, Hebrews, p. 303; UBS4 (speci¿cally the paragraph divisions at vv. 4, 10, and 14); Ellingworth, Hebrews, pp. 488–89; and Westfall, Discourse Analysis, pp. 219–24.199. The coherence of this unit is seen (1) in the (antithetically) coordinate assertions in vv. 1 and 3 (ĝ ÅŦÄÇ˅̸ėË ¸Ĥ̸ėË ¿ÍÊţ¸ÀË…ÇĨ»šÈÇ̼ »ŧŸ̸À [-]//ÒÂÂ’ ëÅ
¸Ĥ̸ėË ÒÅŠÄžÊÀË [+]), (2) by an inclusion in vv. 1 and 4 (»ŧŸ̸À… ̼¼ÀľÊ¸À//
Ò»ŧŸÌÇÅ…ÒθÀɼėÅ), and (3) by the reference to yearly sacri¿ces in vv. 1, 3 and 4 (Á¸Ì’ ëÅÀ¸ÍÌŦÅ; Á¸Ì’ ëÅÀ¸ÍÌŦÅ; ̸ŧÉÑÅ Á¸Ė ÌÉŠºÑÅ = Day of Atonement).
200. The external support for »ŧŸ̸À (thus, ĝ ÅŦÄÇË…»ŧŸ̸À; к46; D*.2, H, K, et al.) is slightly weaker than that for »ŧŸÅ̸À (thus, ̸ėË…¿ÍÊţ¸ÀË…»ŧŸÅ̸À; , A, C, D1, P, et al.; Ellingworth, Hebrews, p. 491). The decision, however, does not greatly affect the sense (cf. Moffatt, Hebrews, p. 135), considering the close inter-play between law and cult suggested elsewhere (see, esp., 7.11-12, 18-19). The former reading makes for slightly better grammar, since were the latter accepted, ĝ ÅŦÄÇË, the sentence’s ostensible subject, would be left without a corresponding predicate (a ‘hanging nominative’ [Bruce, Hebrews, p. 234 n. 3]; ‘an awkward nominative absolute’ [Attridge, Hebrews, p. 267]). Of course, on strictly text-critical grounds, this would make the latter reading more probable, as it would be the more dif¿cult (i.e., lectio dif¿cilior). What mitigates the force of this canon, however, is the possibility that the plural form arose accidentally under the inÀuence of the plural ÈÉÇÊΚÉÇÍÊÀÅ (see, e.g., Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. 600; Koester, Hebrews, p. 431; Lünemann, Hebrews, p. 635) or, perhaps, under the inÀuence of the parallel phrase ÇĤ»šÈÇ̼ »ŧŸÅ̸À in v. 11 (for the suggestion, see Ellingworth, Hebrews, p. 491).
201. Considering the content of the participle phrase that follows it, the opening ºŠÉ probably looks back to 8.5 via 9.23-24 and suggests the conclusion that follows is based on what is said about the tabernacle and now, by implication, the law in Exod. 25.9, 40 (Mitchell, Hebrews, p. 199; Lane, Hebrews, p. 259). The participle phrase, which makes the logic of the ºŠÉ explicit, is, therefore, likewise explanatory or causal, as in the ESV, HCSB, NASB,and NRSV (cf. also the implication in the NIV:
‘The law is only a shadow… For this reason…’). See Cockerill, Hebrews, p. 429,
1
of the coming good things (ÌľÅ Ä¼ÂÂŦÅÌÑÅ Òº¸¿ľÅ; cf. 9.11), a shadow of the reality itself (ÌüË ¼ĊÁŦŸ ÌľÅ ÈɸºÄŠÌÑÅ, v. 1).
202The author proves the limitations of the Levitical cult and now, by inference, its governing law,
203by focusing again on its origin. The tabernacle and, thus, cult, was made to reÀect a heavenly archetype (ÊÁÀŠÅ, 10.1).
204This much was uncontroversial, considering it was drawn from Exod. 25.9, 40. Here, however, the archetype is more clearly eschatological and not simply cosmological or ideal. And, thus, the law and its cult are not only deriva-tive or representaderiva-tive but provisional (cf. 9.10).
205As such, the author concludes, the law’s sacri¿ces could not perfect those who offered them
incl. n. 50; D. L. Allen, Hebrews, p. 492; and Delitzsch, Hebrews, vol. 2, p. 142; cf.also Lünemann, Hebrews, p. 638.
202. The author’s contrast (ÇĤÁ ¸ĤÌüÅ…) between ÊÁÀŠ and ¼ţÁľÅ is unusual, considering the two are often used synonymously elsewhere. See, e.g., Plato, Resp.
509e-510a; also 510e; also Philo, Leg. All. 3.96 (contra Ellingworth, Hebrews, p. 490). Cf. also Plato, Crat. 439a, which equates ĚÅŦĸ̸ with ¼ĊÁŦÅ¸Ë (contra, e.g., Johnson, Hebrews, p. 249; so, e.g., Svendsen, Allegory Transformed, p. 184; Hurst, Hebrews, p. 19; and, e.g., the v.l. in к46, which substitutes Á¸ţ for ÇĤÁ ¸ĤÌŢÅ). Much the same could be said for the author’s implication that ÌüÅ ¼ĊÁŦŸ ÌľÅ ÈɸºÄŠÌÑÅ (= Òº¸¿ľÅ; cf., e.g., P. E. Hughes, Hebrews, p. 390) was ļÂÂŦÅÌÑÅ (from the law’s perspective) and, according to 9.11, that it had come (ȸɸº¼ÅŦļÅÇË and, esp., º¼ÅÇÄšÅÑÅ, from the Christian perspective; see, e.g., Vanhoye, Different Priest, p. 309; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, p. 317; contra, e.g., Moffatt, Hebrews, p. 135). For more on the author’s metaphysic, see the discussion of 8.5 above. And, in any case, the fact that what the law foreshadowed has come, suggests that it is probably too subtle to see a distinction here between ÌüÅ ¼ĊÁŦŸ and ÌľÅ ÈɸºÄŠÌÑÅ (so, e.g., Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, p. 145; contra, e.g., Oecumenius [cited in Erik M. Heen and Philip D. Krey, eds., Hebrews (ACCS: NT, 10; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), p. 149]). ĊÁŦŸ is, therefore, probably best translated embodiment or manifestation (cf. H. Kleinknecht, ‘¼ĊÁŪÅ’, TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 388–90;
also NRSV, ‘the true form of these realities’) and ÌľÅ ÈɸºÄŠÌÑÅ is likely either a genitive of apposition (i.e., ‘the substantial image and form, which is that of the realities themselves’, Delitzsch, Hebrews, vol. 2, p. 144), a genitive of content/
substance (i.e., ‘the very setting forth and form of the heavenly realities themselves’, Alford, Greek Testament, vol. 4, p. 185) or, if ¼ţÁľÅ can be conceived as implicitly verbal (i.e., to embody or manifest), then, perhaps, as an objective genitive. This is, however, not to suggest that these Òº¸¿ľÅ//ÈɸºÄŠÌÑÅ have fully arrived, consid-ering the author’s perspective in 2.9, 10 or 9.28 (see Westcott, Hebrews, p. 305; also Koester, Hebrews, p. 430; Attridge, Hebrews, p. 269), only that the tension in the present age between already and not-yet is not to be found in the contrast between ÊÁÀŠ and ¼ţÁľÅ.
203. Cf. ëÅÌÇÂýË Á¸ÌÛ ÌġÅ ÅŦÄÇÅ, 9.19; also 7.11-12, 18-19; and ¸ďÌÀÅ¼Ë Á¸ÌÛ…, 10.8c.
204. Cf. 8.5; 9.23.
205. See, e.g., Lane, Hebrews, p. 259.
1